In article <[email hidden]>, Donovan Rebbechi
Quoted message said:Ozzie Gontang said:Donovan,
All I'm saying is that one can keep the cadence constant while running
anywhere between a 175 to 190 steps/minute at a 7 or 10 or 12 minute
mile.
In your experiment it varies for you, and I'm saying that it doesn't
have to vary.
Yes, I understand this, but --
(1) I could run at 190 strides per minute at 12 minutes per mile, but why
*should* I ?
Actually 190 strides per minute would be 380 steps a minute. I believe
that 100 meter is somewhere between 210 and 225 steps/minute.
Point taken. There is no should.
To teach back-of-shoe-heel-strikers, overstriders, lopers, plodders,
or more-than-optimal-vertical-displacementers the increase in stride
frequency is to show that there is an easier way of running without as
much effort or as much joint impact.
The reason for increasing the cadence at a slower place is in order to
keep them from running out of breath. The slower paced/higher cadenced
running is a training technique to show them that they can run faster
at the same cadence and first it's good to practice a faster cadence at
a slower speed so one does not tire as rapidly. It teaches that one
can have a quicker cadence by practicing it at a slower speed.
As the lean increases from the ankle there is more work to get the
foot/leg to go through a larger range of motion while maintaining the
same cadence... The effort is to get the leg through the inceased
stride distance more quickly to keep the cadence which in turn demands
more work during one's run.
Quoted message said:(2) We both agree that I'm not "bounding" at any of these stride rates.
Donovan as one is practicing a quicker cadence, this is what I use to
correct the neuromuscular connection of not jumping up when one brings
the knee through.
With the quicker cadence maintaining constant, I have the person lift
up one knee twice as high for several steps and keep the same cadence.
To do this they have to put the foot down faster. A large number of
people with jump up as they lift the knee higher. An interesting thing
that I observed over and over again. After a few times playing with it
and focusing on just bringing the knee forward, they stop jumping and
can put the foot down in cadence. They can lift one leg forward and
higher and still get it place down in cadence.
When we try the other foot, there is often a jump as the knee is lifted
higher and forward, and they then catch themselves. For a while I'll
call left or I'll call right and that's the knee they lift higher
while putting it down faster to maintain cadence.
They I have them lift both knees high without jumping and then back
them to the regular swing of the knee forward, and after several
practices at playing at it, they get the feeling.
To practice, I'll have them run over a log or some low barrier without
jumping up, rather only lifting the knees so they get the experience
that running is falling and catching oneself gracefully. This is how I
get people to experience running as opposed to the
bounding/overstriding/etc.
Quoted message said:(3) Most research suggests that subjects are pretty good at selecting the most
economical stride rate for them, at a given pace. Perhaps some people bound
because certain muscles are not well-conditioned. However, if my cadence is
190 at my ordinary training pace, then I don't appear to have this problem.
I would agree that people are pretty good at selecting the most
economical stride rate for them. I also would say that a majority of
runners have not thought about the possibility of there being a
direction toward optimal running efficency and effectiveness. I would
say that untrained runners, and there are thousands of marathoners
training by running time and distance and never thinking about proper
running form and style because someone says: Running is natural. Run
the way you run because it's your natural running.
After 30 years, Donovan, I have learned to share folklore and attempt
to make sense...so one senses the difference between what they thought
was natural, and what they've learned by thinking of running as
graceful and something that doesn't have to create injuries down the
years with damaged knees, and hips and ankles and chronically pained
muscles and muscle groups.
I use to attempt to teach anyone who ran with me or took my classes.
The resistance they felt was created by me for being so zealous and
righteous. True it still leaks out.
However, I am heartened that my attempt to get runners to think about
such things as proper running form and style has had its effect on many
here at rec.running who were willing to play with the ideas and act as
experiments of one who shared what they experienced and shared their
folklore of what they learned and explained it in ways that I wasn't
or hadn't thought of. Different images, different experiences,
different pictures that made sense and connected with others where my
thoughts didn't.
Quoted message said:(4) If a higher stride rate is better, why don't we tell everyone to use 190
strides/minute ? If I can do it, why not everyone else ? Could it be that
there's a tradeoff taking place that prevents most people from turning over
at 240 strides/minute ? If this factor contributes substantially to energy
cost of running (about 25% if I recall correctly), why should it stay constant
across all paces ?
There are two steps to a stride.
I see a higher stride rate as a teaching tool to show people that they
can run with less impact and less effort.
The energy expenditure increases as the speed increases. If I am doing
a 12 minute mile at 180 steps a minute, I can continue to do 180 steps
a minute and do a six minute mile which means that I'm covering the
mile distance in half the time or twice the distance in 12 minutes.
And the runner has maintained the 180 steps/minute at both speeds of 6
minute mile and 12 minute mile.
Quoted message said:(5) I actually don't care very much if I have suboptimal running economy at
slower paces than 7 minutes per mile anyway -- because unless I start doing
ultras or trail marathons, I don't race slower than that pace.
Donovan, I actually do care very much to help the runners I train and
develop to have optimal running economy at slower paces, 8, 10, 12
minute miles. I want to train my running body to practice optimal
running economy at all paces. I want others to do the same especially
if they want want to run fast or faster than they thought possible.
For me it's about training not laboriously but playing with the ideas
and experimenting with the practicing of running gracefully and with
ease.
Quoted message said:
PS also got about 190 strides per minute on the treadmill last night in my
trainers at 7:30/mile.
I think you mean 190 steps/minute.
Some images to play with.
Let the elbow to shoulder relax so that your elbow swings an inch
freer going forward. Image that the arm hangs on a stainless steel
shaft that goes through the sholders. The arms hand and swing freely
on the stainless steel teflon coated shaft.
The legs start below the rib cage so the hips/thighs swing
forward/backward opposite and equally each step. The shoulders move
opposite and equal in perfect unison with the hips.
The tread pulls the foot/lower leg/thigh/hip/torso back until it
lifts off the ground as the other foot/lower leg/thigh/hip/torso
touches down and in turn is pulled back. As the one foot/lower
leg/thigh/hip/torso is pulled back the other hip and all attached above
and below swing forward opposite and equal to the side being pulled
back by the tread.
Cheers back and thanks for your observations, perspectives and
questioning runner's mind.
In health and on the run,
Ozzie Gontang
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
Mindful Running:
http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp
Quoted message said:
Cheers,
