Catalyst Athletics Forums - running stride frequency

Catalyst Athletics Forums (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/index.php)

- Endurance (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

- - running stride frequency (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5535)

running stride frequency

i heard a general rule that good runners tend to run at an increased stride frequency (~180 steps a minute) and that it would benefit the average person to do the same in terms of efficiency and reduced injury.

i was wondering if anyone knows what happens when good runners change speeds e.g. running a 5K v marathon, does the frequency stay constant and the length of each stride change or does the frequency change and the stride length remain constant. or a combination of both. and how is this relevant to the average slower runner?

When athletes go faster it's the stride length that should increase, not the stride frequency. I don't believe it's possible to get your stride frequency beyond a certain threshold. Even the world's most elite sprinters don't try to make their legs move faster, but rather they try to produce more force with each step.

The same applies to distance running. When you speed up from a 8 minute mile to a 7 minute mile, you probably don't take that many more steps, but instead try to make each step go further.

I'm no elite runner or anything but I think the whole 90 cadence/180 step thing is a little overplayed. It might be helpful as a rough guide when learning how to adjust your running pace, but I don't see the value of it beyond that.

You should be comfortable/relaxed while running or sprinting. Whatever stride frequency your body will naturally set is whatever that is.

Plyometrics, getting stronger, etc tend to increase stride length.

I have lots of friends that run and most of them seem to have a lot of problems with there knees and such, and I was thinking that increasing frequency would be the least crazy sounding suggestion (as opposed to forefoot striking or wearing shoes with less cushioning) that would be helpful for them

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Gam (Post 77549)

How would that possibly solve a knee issue?

Lyle posted this on a discussion about POSE and whatnot.

Quote:

J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Aug;21(3):888-93.
Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon.

Hasegawa H, Yamauchi T, Kraemer WJ.
Laboratory of Exercise Science, Department of Business Management, Ryukoku University, Kyoto, Japan. hiroshi515@aol.com
Abstract

There are various recommendations by many coaches regarding foot landing techniques in distance running that are meant to improve running performance and prevent injuries. Several studies have investigated the kinematic and kinetic differences between rearfoot strike (RFS), midfoot strike (MFS), and forefoot strike (FFS) patterns at foot landing and their effects on running efficiency on a treadmill and over ground conditions. However, little is known about the actual condition of the foot strike pattern during an actual road race at the elite level of competition. The purpose of the present study was to document actual foot strike patterns during a half marathon in which elite international level runners, including Olympians, compete. Four hundred fifteen runners were filmed by 2 120-Hz video cameras in the height of 0.15 m placed at the 15.0-km point and obtained sagittal foot landing and taking off images for 283 runners. Rearfoot strike was observed in 74.9% of all analyzed runners, MFS in 23.7%, and FFS in 1.4%. The percentage of MFS was higher in the faster runners group, when all runners were ranked and divided into 50 runner groups at the 15.0-km point of the competition. In the top 50, which included up to the 69th place runner in actual order who passed the 15-km point at 45 minutes, 53 second (this speed represents 5.45 m x s(-1), or 15 minutes, 17 seconds per 5 km), RFS, MFS, and FFS were 62.0, 36.0, and 2.0%, respectively. Contact time (CT) clearly increased for the slower runners, or the placement order increased (r = 0.71, p < or = 0.05). The CT for RFS + FFS for every 50 runners group significantly increased with increase of the placement order. The CT for RFS was significantly longer than MFS + FFS (200.0 +/- 21.3 vs. 183.0 +/- 16 millisecond). Apparent inversion (INV) of the foot at the foot strike was observed in 42% of all runners. The percentage of INV for MFS was higher than for RFS and FFS (62.5, 32.0, and 50%, respectively). The CT with INV for MFS + FFS was significantly shorter than the CT with and without INV for RFS. Furthermore, the CT with INV was significantly shorter than push-off time without INV for RFS. The findings of this study indicate that foot strike patterns are related to running speed. The percentage of RFS increases with the decreasing of the running speed; conversely, the percentage of MFS increases as the running speed increases. A shorter contact time and a higher frequency of inversion at the foot contact might contribute to higher running economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Gam (Post 77549)

Perhaps they should read this instead.

http://www.eatmoveimprove.com/2009/1...-dysfunctions/

I've said this before in numerous forums, but here's my .02 on footstrike.

I don't believe that what part of the foot strikes first is as important as where the foot is in relation to the center-of-gravity.

Faster and more-efficient runners tend to have the foot impact right below the center-of-gravity, sometimes a little behind it.

Slower, less efficient runners tend to have the foot impact in front of the center-of-gravity, which causes more knee problems and causes a "braking" effect upon impact.

Having your foot strike under COG or behind will often accompany a midfoot or forefoot strike, and having the foot strike in front of COG will almost always accompany a rearfoot strike.

YMMV.

I know someone said to run at your own natural frequency, but out of curiousity, assuming you wanted to change it how would you go about doing that without ruining your form?

Running is a funny one, I suppose it is a little like squatting in that each and everyones technique will be a little different. I have gravitated towards the minimalist running with vibrams. I made the switch a couple of years ago and am still improving my form. Had a couple of calf injuries by thinking I must run on my toes with a big stride. Now my stride is shorter and more natural, more midfoot, with slight inversion. When I get a good stride like this it feels effortless, and I can run very fast for a long distance.