Hated advice on running technique can be good
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Imagine if you watched a video on running technique and all the comments were of this type:
"This is so wrong!"
"That's bullshit"
"I fu king hate this guy"
"Will get a lot of people injured"
"Wrong!!!"
"Silly advice from this charlatan"
"This is completely wrong"
"Terrible advice"
"It's a wrong advice"
"Worst post"
"Very misleading video"
"What a load of bs"
What would you then think about the coach and the advice he/she delivers? That the coach is a smart guy that knows what he/she is talking about?
Probably not.
In this video, you get to see the video so you can make your own judgment, whether the coach deserves the comments or not. And as usual, it is not as categorically black or white when it comes to biomechanics as many people seem to think as what is optimal is different for different people and the distribution of what costs energy changes depending on the pace at which the runner runs.
Links to the videos I mention in this video:
”Will going from a cadence of 150 to 190 make you overstride less when running?” • Will going from a cade...
”Facts, not myths, about cadence and stride length for runners": • Facts, not myths, abou...
___________________________________________________
Fredrik Zillén is an running technique specialist that has over the years helped thousands of runners to a more efficient running technique - from the slowest beginners to members of the Swedish national team in running and triathlon who have participated in the World Championships and the Olympics. Fredrik also writes articles on effective running technique for Runner's World magazine.
Following the success of Fredrik Zilléns online course in Swedish, he has also produced an updated and improved version in English. You can find it here: www.fredrikzil...
You find the Swedish version at: www.fredrikzil...
"Fantastic running course. Fredrik is an excellent teacher with a unique approach. I highly recommend this course to runners of all levels."
Kevin, UK
"The best money I have ever spent. Great mix of humour, practical technique and theory. It’s brilliant and I have been telling all my friends about it. I’ve knocked 30 secs off my average pace to 4:30 and at 53 I’m absolutely astonished how relaxed I feel running. It’s also really helped my cycling my adapting similar techniques and visualisation. Thanks so much."
Paul, UK
"Just wanted to say Im 2/3 through your running program and WOW what an insane difference".
Runner, Texas, USA
”I have done the first two audio lessons now. It's amazing what a difference you made for me. I ran 90 minutes yesterday and have never felt so refreshed both during and after the workout, and then I have never run so fast with the same low heart rate. Thanks for that!!”
Update from a runner after two of the six audio lessons
I can honestly say it is some of the clearest and best instruction I have ever recieved in any topic. After a year of shin splints I went for a run yesterday and was almost in (joyful) tears because I had zero pain, so thank you!!
Andrew
”I got your online course and it almost instantly fixed my running form. I can prove that by having half an hour faster marathon finishing time.”
Runner, Indonesia
"I knew nothing about running other than put one foot forward in front of the other...and fast. Then I signed up for his course. Mind blowing!... and too cheap if you ask me. Totally recommend it."
Runner
Read more testimonials here: fredrikzilleno...
The course in English: www.fredrikzil...
The course in Swedish: www.fredrikzil...
This explanation is so beautiful! I love it. I’ve been running pretty close to 50 years now, since the 1970’s. Can’t believe that even now at 71 years of age I’m still trying to learn how to do it properly! I should have got the hang of it by now! 😊
Awesome exposition! Very well done!! Fredrick, you get the Valdez Star seal of approval. ⭐. 😁👍
Exactly. People scared of impact or getting any air in their stride so sucked to ground. End up using all the heavy muscles to drag themselves forward and missing all the free energy from natural elasticity from the fascia.
The sad thing is, you could show a child running through a field of beautiful flowers and someone would have negative comments about it.
Hate those damn kids destroying nature… 😌
When I see kids running in videos, the well meaning but very stupid people in the comments section will usually complain about running being bad for kids and it will stunt their growth (fitphobia is more prominent than fatphobia now.) Or complain about kids being exploited for clicks. I don't think changing the location to a field stops either of those.
Why not
The irony is that a lot of the people leaving those comments probably also say that "you should run at a cadence of 180bpm, because that is the best and most optimal cadence for any runner". Well, in that case, the ONLY way to change your speed is to change your stride length...
I think many confuse an observable fact that the best runners have a cadence of around 180 spm as some sort of "rule". It's not. Instead, A 180 cadence is optimal for some (or the best runners), but not necessarily the best for ALL runners. To say 180 is best or optimal for ALL runner is creating a problem/claim that doesn't exist and often click bait.
Knowledgeable coaches use 180 cadence (or simply increasing cadence) is a training goal designed to balance stride length and cadence to achieve faster times, better running form, less injury. And, where cadence is the most flexible part of the "go faster" = stride x cadence equation.
Why is cadence the most flexible? Lets look at stride length for the answer.
Stride length, is part of the "going faster" equation but not necessarily the most efficient way to increase speed. Stride length is mostly a by-product of leg length and that is a fixed aspect of each runner. However, cadence is less restrictive and mostly a by-product of the environment and fitness level. Thus, the idea of higher cadence, like 180 spm as a training goal, becomes a more viable and adaptable part of "going faster" while also improving efficiency.
Exactly this. Running form follows from pace, not the other way around.
This is an excellent video. Although just to add my 2 Cents, I think a lot of the misinformation comes about because there are loads of on-line 'coaches' who are giving advice that's correct for elite runners, and then trying to apply that same info to a hobby jogger who's shuffling along at 10 minute/mile pace. A lot of it is total and utter nonsense. The dynamics of running mainly follows from the pace that you are going, not the other way around. You can't try to mimic an elite athlete and then expect run at the same speed. If you were capable of running at the pace of the elites then your running form would very closely match them as well. I'm tired of internet coaches who are trying to make people believe that they can run faster by copying what an elite runner does. People need to remember that the human body is remarkably good at learning all by itself how to conserve energy and avoid injury. My advice is to ignore the advice and let your body work it out for itself. If you've been running for a couple of years then almost certainly your body will have learned to move in a way that is best for *you*. On the subject of cadence, it's highly specific to the individual. Age plays a big part, as does a runner's height. Young runners who still have very elastic tendons naturally have a better running economy, so a longer stride and lower cadence works best for them, whereas runners in their 50's and beyond have much harder tendons and therefore get considerably less energy return, that's the main reason why we are slower. Us oldies are more likely to benefit from higher cadence and shorter strides, but of course that puts a cap on ultimate pace. As an example, my 17 year old son races all distances from 400m (53 seconds) to half marathon (77 minutes) and his cadence can be as high as 240 for the sprint and as low as 170-172 for the HM. Over the HM distance I (as a 58 year old) would be running at a cadence of around 180-185, but not even close to the same pace as the youngster. Similarly, a friend of mine is 6'4" whereas I'm just 5'4" so obviously I have to run at a higher cadence than him for the same pace. One-size-fits-all does not apply.
Reason number 1 in the summary was the most polite way I have ever heard someone say "pull your head out of your ass"! :D
So Right! More so, following Ramirez superb Spanish speaking UA-cam channel, I always find his explanation and insights very interesting and educating. Even if something seems controversial - I prefer to question him, learn and decide for myself. Thank you Fredrik for your highlighting the simple science behind the truth.
That explanation checks out for me. I have a short cadence and my fastest 5k is at 4:00min/km pace. Thanks for confirming my suspicions Fredrik.
Such fascinating analysis Fredrik!
The relationship between running economy, cadence and run speed you describe are counterintuitive-but your explanation makes a lot of sense (if I understood correctly). My takeaway: use higher cadence at lower speeds on easier runs, don't worry as much about cadence at high speeds-use what feels right. Spending a lot of time doing easier runs at high cadence will strengthen muscles, feel less effortful and protect you from overuse injuries, esp if a relatively new runner..
Math clearly shows that cadence and stride length are directly related to running output, but they're not necessarily equally dependent on each other. Increasing either OR both will EFFECTIVELY increase output.
However, running EFFICIENCY varies based on factors like environment, biomechanical limitations, experience, and fitness level (for example).
This is where running power comes into play, defined as output relative to energy input. The challenge is that we can't precisely measure the energy used to generate a runner's power output. This explains why there's no standardized version of running power, and why heart rate (HR) is used as a basic indicator of energy expenditure.
The idea of power can be simplified by using the term "PUSH" of the run cycle. Simply put, pushing harder BACKWARD (no matter the cadence or stride length) generates more power FORWARD. Cadence AND/OR stride describe how a runner can PUSH BACKWARD more effectively but may (or may not) be efficient since effort used per unit of output defines efficiency.
As a result, lower HR at a higher pace is generally considered more efficient. This also explains why pace is often used - it's simple and doesn't require special devices. However, while a person can increase BOTH or EITHER stride length and cadence to increase their pace, there's no simple method to determine the energy cost per unit of output. Thus, leading to the question: what's the point of running faster if you can't finish or train effectively?
Ultimately, discussions about running technique often boil down to two aspects: desired goals and achievable results. This is why there's often debate about the "best" running form, with various coaches promoting different ideas of efficiency, with some more sensible than others. This is also why concepts like stride length and cadence in running form become muddy and misunderstood when applied in practical terms while simultaneously confusing effectiveness with efficiency.
In a nutshell, "effective" is working hard for a desired result or goal. "Efficiency" is working smart toward an achievable goal. And, where stride length and cadence are particular elements of BOTH efficiency and effectiveness. In particular, you want more "PUSH BACKWARD" at the lowest energy cost relative to stride length AND/OR cadence.*
*BTW, If you want to know how to do this, ...buy ... learn to use ... get access to.. an H/P/Cosmo Treadmill (with Zebris software) and it will show you.
Thanks Fredrik!
It'd be nice if people engeaged each other with respect and curiosity rather than aggression and colose-mindedness. Sadly the internet isn't going to change - people don't get nuance or sublty.
I've just had a look at my 5k PB run and 400m PB. Both this year and I'm a very average runner and it seems to me that Ramirez is spot on.. when I run faster I up my cadence and stride length but the majority of the speed comes from stride length.
Pace: 5k 4:06/km, 400m 3:08/km
Cadence: 5k 182, 400m 190
Stride Length: 5k 132cm, 400m 172cm
Vert ratio: 5k 6.7%, 400m 4.8%
Larger stride length is just a function of putting more force into the ground when you push off (which comes mailny from hip extension if you run on flat surface). Matt Minard from learn2run covered it quite well. So is the famous "ground contact time" - you cannot have a short contact time if you run slow.
Increase in cadence is also natural in this case, but the cause can be either that your muscles cannot provide high enough force to support lower cadence or limitations in your mobility.
Everyone has different body and therefore different mechanics.
It actually looks like coach Ramirez overstrides when he runs with shorter strides, but not when he runs with longer strides. Which proves one of your points 😊
I think that Spanish coach forgets to mention that you need the vo2 max to support higher speeds. It’s rare that the bottleneck is the stride, it’s way more often the ability to generate ATP from substrates, then running economy - usually via losing unecessary weight. Wayyy before there is a stride length problem.
No, the problem in my opinion is the short format video clips, seeking attention by putting opinions black and white. Then ofcourse people are going to disagree.
The social media companies are the problem(The environment). Not the people on them, they can behave or not, depending on environment.
I do like your expectation on the slow and fast running pace.
Well said!
Contention is good so no one gets into the danger zone of thinking they are always right and cannot refine their arguments.
Short choppy steps just feel horrible and don't flow properly.
Schrodinger’s advice
Fredrik, while I find your videos somewhat limited in terms of information, I'm happy to stay subscribed because of this one. I do have a few additional questions, though.
Is it true that at a lower pace, you consume more total mechanical energy (2.7 J/kg/m @ 6:40/km) compared to a higher pace (1.7 J/kg/m @ 3:00/km)?
Are these values representative of the most efficient runners?
If so, what are some typical values for non-elite runners?
I would say it's the opposite, but only up to a point. Imagine going through the motions of running but actually moving only at walking pace. It's incredibly inefficient. Walking will cost considerably less energy, which is why we walk at low speed and not 'run'. However, increase the pace and you start to feel that you are putting in less effort for the ground that you're covering. More effort in absolute terms, but not relative to pace. The point of maximum efficiency varies greatly between individuals. For example, I (as a 58 year old) 'feel' that I'm running most efficiently in terms of the ground covered for the effort I'm putting in at about 5:00-5:15min/km pace, whereas my 17 year old son says he feels most efficient at about 3:30-3:45min/km pace. I may be wrong, but I suspect that it ties in with the variations in energy recovery between individuals, my son obviously having a considerably better running economy than myself.
Thank you - always educational, and entertaining ! Do you have advice, methods, magical potions ... for a heavy runner, who gets shin splints after 1k when running on hard even surfaces - and would like to get back to running 10k and half marathon on road... but who can run just fine yet slow on mountainbike and other soft to semi-soft undulated trails ? ( yes ... #1 is loose weight ... the advise after that one I mean )
A few insights I've learnt during the years,
1) focus on gym workouts first, 3 times a week, 1 slow, 1 medium, 1 intense workout. Focus on legs mostly, variations, build strength especially where you used to get injured. However, make sure your muscles are balanced. If you train quads more than hamstrings etc. etc. , no good. Also, machines do not always hit all muscles. Train your shins too. Use bands or body exercise routines.
2) Alternate walks with runs, get a god ... (edited) a dog ... lol. Get a god too, like the real one in the Bible. Pray...
3) When you run, change the way you run, meaning that by lowering your centre of mass, you use more quads, by standing taller you use more calves etc. It's not the time to focus on form yet.
4) Rotate your shoes, 3-4 pairs, but 80% of the time use Altra zero drop shoes or other flat shoes. However, if you have weak arches, alternate with shoes with extra support there.
5) Go carnivore. 80% of pains are from food rather than muscular. Seems impossible? Transition via a low carbs diet first, after a certain age, high carbs diet is no good, trust me on that. However, ease into it, still have some carbs.
6) Are you absorbing all nutrients, minerals, vitamins? How do you know? Low or high blood pressure can give you an indication.
7) Your mind is more ambitious than your body, when you want to train 4 times a week, cut it in half, when you want to sprint 10 times, sprint only 7 times etc.
8) This is perhaps the most important point. Do not train at all, or train easy when you have had a hard time, had bad thoughts, argued, drunk, or anything lowering your mood. Most injuries are emotionally induced - I should get paid here ... lol!
9) Aim at running a 5 km race, rather than half a marathon or your mind will push you to train too hard subconsciously.
10) Perhaps buy the course on this channel, I'm thinking of buying it too, if one can save time by avoiding injuries, 200 $ is well worth it.
And much much more...
Sheeps will be sheeps
Nice video. Is there any advice how to determine (test) what stride length is best for me? Eg firstly I will run with too short steps, then I will try longer and longer steps..... and at some point it cost too much energy to do those huge steps that I must make slightly shorter steps. But how short? To make as long steps as possible but without feeling too much tension in the muscles?.....
It is similar situation to riding the bike - what gear to shift? Lower gear or higher gear? How to determine what gear suits me best? Maybe I can perceive subjectively more effort in high gear but when I will be much quicker then it is ok....
I don't think it's possible to control stride length. You just have to work on your running technique. When you've maxed your technique you'll use pace to run at a speed to finish your goal distance. For example, you must pace slower to finish a 10k versus a 5k or you'll fail to keep up at the end. With shorter distances you'll have faster pace and with faster pace you'll have longer strides. In another way to think about it, the stronger your leg muscles the more power you can push against the floor to accelerate but its the fitness level that determines whether you can sustain that and for how long. Finally, stride length is the product of all that said. Stride length is not the variable, or option, for which to choose. I hope that helped you get a sense of all this running technique mumbo jumbo
@@luimulder3768 You can definitely control stride length as well as cadence. Of course you have some limitations what these values can be but they are not determined beforehand - you can choose to run with higer cadence and shorter steps or with lower cadence and longer steps.
På’rom bara!😂
Just run, your body will work it out for itself. It's very good at that.
@@thegearboxman Someones say yes and someones say no, you should try. Someones say the body will find its best possible techniques and someones say no you should often correct it - and seeing many people running ouside with poor form, the people from the secod group are often true...
👍👍
you had me scared with those words of wisdom
when i jog at 6:40-50 i have 0.85m stride and around 170 cadence. when i run at under 5 min/k i have around 180 cadence and a stride length of 1.1-1.2m. if i follow these people's advice i would have to shuffle at 220 cadence... probably risking to trip myself and break a nose 😂
👍