Discussion: discrepancy
in: Work4justice; Work4justice > 2019-02-27
Feb 28, 2019 1:05 PM
#
Aha...and...my stride tends to be longer than is what is efficient. Yet another thing to work on....
Feb 28, 2019 3:39 PM
#
Same, I need to shorten it up, at least out of the woods, to save my poor legs, let alone the efficiency aspect.
Feb 28, 2019 5:31 PM
#
Bash:
For speedsters like you, it's easy! :) I'm not convinced it's always the solution for us ordinary folks though, and some people get injured when they change their natural running gait too much. Heel striking is very common among non-track runners, even elite marathon runners as they fatigue.
The article below is one of many I've read since admitting that I have a stride problem. (Which is the first "step"! :) )
“Footstrike is dependent on speed and surface... At a 10-minute mile, the forces are low and it doesn’t matter all that much whether you land on your heel or forefoot. But at faster speeds, nature would make the decision for you to move on to your forefoot.” [Alas, Nature doesn't need to worry about me too much.]
......
"Again and again, overstriding gets mentioned as the villain of the piece. It’s often linked to heel striking, but as both Cole and Esteban Protheroe point out, it’s perfectly possible to overstride and land on the forefoot. In other words, switching to the forefoot does not automatically turn you into a better runner. But reducing overstride does. 'There are degrees of overstride,' says Esteban Protheroe. 'A slight overstride is better than a big one, just as a slight heel landing is better than a ‘toes in the air’ one with the knee joint locked out.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-runni...
The other thing I've looked at is cadence. At one time, the general wisdom was that everybody needed a cadence of 180 but that has been discredited in favour of more individual numbers.
So far, my conclusion from reading different analyses is that we could all benefit from shortening our stride, limiting force on our heels and increasing our cadence. But for most of us, it seems most effective to make modest adjustments to our natural running form rather than major changes.
The article below is one of many I've read since admitting that I have a stride problem. (Which is the first "step"! :) )
“Footstrike is dependent on speed and surface... At a 10-minute mile, the forces are low and it doesn’t matter all that much whether you land on your heel or forefoot. But at faster speeds, nature would make the decision for you to move on to your forefoot.” [Alas, Nature doesn't need to worry about me too much.]
......
"Again and again, overstriding gets mentioned as the villain of the piece. It’s often linked to heel striking, but as both Cole and Esteban Protheroe point out, it’s perfectly possible to overstride and land on the forefoot. In other words, switching to the forefoot does not automatically turn you into a better runner. But reducing overstride does. 'There are degrees of overstride,' says Esteban Protheroe. 'A slight overstride is better than a big one, just as a slight heel landing is better than a ‘toes in the air’ one with the knee joint locked out.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-runni...
The other thing I've looked at is cadence. At one time, the general wisdom was that everybody needed a cadence of 180 but that has been discredited in favour of more individual numbers.
So far, my conclusion from reading different analyses is that we could all benefit from shortening our stride, limiting force on our heels and increasing our cadence. But for most of us, it seems most effective to make modest adjustments to our natural running form rather than major changes.
This discussion thread is closed.