Running Technique Tips

Recently Pete Larson wrote about a study performed on the implications of increasing stride rate on the muscle activity of recreational runners by Elizabeth Chumanov and colleagues from the University of Wisconsin. I’ve had this study sitting around for a few months now and have been frankly procrastinating about what to say about it, so it was good that Pete bashed out some typically thoughtful words on the study in recent days to force my hand.

Study results and summary

The study of 45 injury free recreational runners, doing a modest amount of training (30km per week average) analyzed the impact of increasing cadence (stride rate) by 5 and 10 percent off a self selected speed and initial stride rate. In short, the runners were asked to maintain their preferred speed but increase their step rate by 10%. The muscle activity at different stages of the gait cycle was then measured and recorded to identify if any changes were evident and importantly where they occurred.

I was pretty interested to see that an increase in cadence of 10% above a self selected step rate resulted in increased hamstring and glute activation late in the mid to late swing phase of running and in what I call preparation – the moments just before ground contact.

This is significant as it suggests increasing stride rate could lead to more optimal positioning of the pelvis, thighs and even feet ahead of ground contact. Although I’m not sure this study shows or was designed to measure this potential knock on effect, rather measuring the increased muscle activity but not a significant change in movement pattern.

As Pete indicated in his article, I’m the first to promote any measure that gets these key hip extensor muscles (hamstrings and glutes) firing. But I was slightly surprised that an increase in cadence would, for want of a better description, automatically trigger this increase in muscle activity. However, it’s been measured, so it did happen and that’s a good thing to know.

Stride rate as a coaching intervention

The general approach we’ve taken in our coaching work has been to note cadence during the technique assessment as a benchmark that we can compare after the runner has increased strength and taken on board any technical tweaks.  Rather than try to restrict runners by making them take many very small strides, we prefer to work on evolving towards better movement patterns and the muscle strength and activity needed to sustain this over time.

The net result is runners usually increase stride rate at various speeds, especially if they are coming off a low cadence base, are not very strong, or are using a compromised running technique. Why? It seems the correct movement and muscle activation pattern of activating the hips extensors quickly and with strength gets you on and off the ground faster and leads to faster recovery of the leg. The end result: increase in cadence without counting steps. To summarize our approach it’s about working towards running better before worrying too much about increasing stride rate.

This study does suggest that we could place more emphasis on combining these elements. There could be some beneficial chicken and egg impact at play. I’m reluctant to do this however, because runners trying to make changes already have enough to think about without adding another layer of complexity. Where runners have foot-pods, then looking at data collected after the run can give a sense of whether changes in movement pattern are impacting cadence. This is likely a better way to go.

Writing on stride rate and running technique

To read a bit more about our left field thinking on stride rate, please take a few moments to read two previous articles I have written on the subject. The first examines popular stride rate thinking, the second gives some ideas about how stride rate can be a measure of improved strength and something to monitor during demanding training sessions.

Other thoughts and questions about this study

There are some questions about this study that would be interesting to note that didn’t appear to be in the write up of the findings. How fast were the runners running and how slow was their initial step-rate on average? It seems logical that if overall the group shared a tendency towards being slow striders then a greater compensatory effect may have been in evidence than if they were already in a normal range – whatever that might be! Food for thought.

@brianruncoach Nice post! For the kinematic and kinetic data for the study see this paper – same sample I think: engr.wisc.edu/groups/nmbl/pu…

— Pete L. (@Runblogger) June 14, 2012

Correction 14/6. Thanks to Luke Nelson for alerting me to some data I missed. The preferred speeds were 2.9+/- 0.5m/s, and the step rate was 172.6 +/-8.8. The runners were in the 6 to 5 min km pace ball-park.

If the stride rate increase were driven by overuse of the quads (in particular rectus femoris) then perhaps the potential benefits could be somewhat negated? In this study the authors did notice an increase in activity in rectus femoris (hip flexor and knee straightening muscle) and tibialis anterior, (major muscle that points toes up ahead of landing in heel striking).

Where they noticed this increase was interesting, what they describe as pre-swing/early swing. To me that could indicate potential use of the rectus femoris to retrieve the leg, a pattern that I’m familiar with from my own running in recent years gone by. It tends to lead to a low leg recovery that means you need to cock the ankle more to avoid scuffing the ground and tripping as the leg swings forward.

So a potential destructive impact of increasing step rate without corresponding gait retraining and strength work could be to make the hamstrings and calves work harder to try and brake the forward swinging leg. It could also lead to compromised hip extension (pictured) as the runner cuts this phase short in an attempt to recover the leg faster.

My final injury that put the nail in the coffin of my quad driven running style was in behind the knee / high calf area and appeared to be related to aggressive flicking out of the lower leg with every stride. I know it’s always hard to pin down the exact cause of injuries, but this one hurt more in relation to my speed and leg straightening increasing.

Thinking back to my own experiences, I did spend some time focusing on cadence before I began researching running technique. It did help, but I didn’t feel it made much difference to my overall muscle activation and movement pattern and I still became injured as a result of my pretty ordinary mechanics.

This video of me running at 4min km pace and striding at 180 steps per minute – in theory a magic number, may give you a sense of what I’m getting at.

Conclusion

This is a great little study that provides some good insights that could be useful for runners and coaches; however I think we need to be cautious about only focusing on one element as a means to reduce the instances of running injuries. Striding faster, yes it can help, but striding well is more important.

By Brian Martin

Something that has been rattling around in the back of my mind of late, as I’ve been trotting through my easier and long runs, has been the much talked about topic of stride rate and the magical number 180 that was famously recorded by Jack Daniels in his book as being the gold standard for running cadence. This was based on observations of runners competing at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics where he noticed remarkable consistency of stride rate across a range of distances. While this was based around elite runners who happened to be running very fast it has trickled down into mainstream running without much of a challenge.

Running technique, stride rate and the social media intervention

That was until earlier in the week when I spied a Tweet from the @NakedRunners linking to Sweat Science, the blog of scientist, author and runner Alex Hutchinson who had compiled some personal data on his stride rate as he increased his running speed from 5 minute km pace to 3 minute km pace. Have a read of the article by following the link above, it’s worth a look and some thinking time. So the material put together by Alex gave me a shove to get my thoughts in order about the implications of stride rate on proper running technique. And in late breaking news RunBlogger Pete Larson has also weighed in with some more thoughts. Who said social media serves no useful purpose? I immediately re-tweeted and posted it on my Facebook page, which I’m using as a fast way to link and share material generated by other authors – so if you haven’t done so you might like to like Running Technique Tips on Facebook to get more of these on the fly updates.

Could too much focus on turnover lead to teeny tiny strides?

Before I started researching running technique I had a crack at implementing the 180 mantra with my quad oriented, painful running technique, I found it helpful, but it wasn’t a panacea for my running technique ills. And I have to admit I’ve been guilty of focusing on stride rate perhaps a little too much in the past. I also included some information about cadence in my Running Technique book, however, I had some reservations about it as I’ve listed it as a factor to look at, but not the whole story when it comes to assessing whether or not someone has good running technique. This was in part due to seeing the implications of some of my own experimentation where I found that too much focus on cadence was at times turning me into a teeny tiny strider.

An unsubstantiated but pretty good theory

So how does that work? Well I’m not a scientist so I’m going to throw out a theory based on my own experience and that of other runners grappling with this issue. When you’re running on an easy day, unless you’re Haile Gebrselassie* (world marathon record holder), there’s a fair chance you’ll be running at 5 – 6 min km pace or even a little slower depending on your ability level. *It’s been reported that Haile finds it painful to run much slower than 4min km pace.

Anyway my take on stride rate and proper running technique is this: if you strive too much for fast cadence at slow speeds it is possible to compromise your technique. By this I mean either jamming up the late forward swing phase of running too much and/or by not completing a reasonable extension of the hip joint through the contact phase – that is not activating the glutes (buttocks) enough to push your body ahead of the hips.  In each case the runner is in such a hurry to launch the next stride that it is started prematurely and/or the previous one is left as unfinished business. Get more information about how I describe the four phases of running here.

Under-striding: a problem you may not have thought about

Launching your stride prematurely or under-striding as I call it, is less damaging than landing with your leg straight out ahead on your heel, however it can translate into loss of stride length (ground covered) at faster speeds if you don’t allow yourself to open up a bit more. However if you do decide to open up the taps in search of speed and flowing running form it’s a good idea to ensure your hamstrings and glutes are well conditioned and in reasonable balance (in terms of strength) compared to your quads. When I initially started redressing the imbalances in my own body I had to consciously stop myself from over extending (straightening) my knees (the cause of a nasty season ending injury), however as my strength has increased it’s become a subconscious factor where the hamstrings are strong and supple enough to resist over-extension.

As an interesting aside, the so called Kenyan shuffle exhibited by American sub 13 minute 5k runner Chris Solinsky in this video does not appear to be done with fast cadence – I estimate about 156 strides per minute by shoulder movement and sound, but maths was never a strength of mine.

 

I actually think under-striding can be an issue because there’s so much talk about over-striding that regular runners are scared stiff about touching down slightly ahead of their body – even though this is exactly what elite runners do. Check out this article by Michael Yessis for a bit more information and another take on the over-striding phenomena.

Unfinished business – don’t switch off your bum too early

The point Alex makes in his blog is valid – elite runners are likely to stride slower at cross-over jogging pace (in training) with recreational runners because they are stronger, better coordinated and able to tap into more free energy from the muscles and tendons and therefore able to cover more ground per stride. This is exactly the reason I believe that it is beneficial for recreational runners to focus on getting good glute (buttock) activation during ground contact and ensuring the stride isn’t cut short prematurely (even if this leads to a slightly slower stride rate in training). This ensures that when the time comes to run a bit faster your glutes are better conditioned and able to help propel you further for each step in race conditions when your stride should lengthen and cadence increase.

In terms of the of the running technique assessment work Mark and I have been doing, we have noted slow stride rates on a few occasions but we generally don’t make a big issue out of it unless the cadence doesn’t pick up much with increases in running speed e.g. 6 min km pace to 5 min km pace or 5 min to 4 min pace. If the stride rate doesn’t increase much it implies and is often visually evident that the runner has increased their speed by over-striding, not through a longer bound or flight phase, but through an elongated stride pattern – not a good idea. So you do need to keep an eye on it.

Coaching for cadence

So is an increase in stride rate a good coaching cue or instruction to give to a runner? It depends, everyone responds to and then implements that kind of suggestion differently, some might become teeny tiny striders, for others they may be ok and it could be exactly the stimulus they require to run better. I think it needs monitoring to make sure the intended result of the instruction is implemented by the runner.

A personal aside

So I went back and had a look at some old footage someone took of me a few years back before I began working on improving my running technique. The results were interesting, and I’ll send them to Alex so he can plot them on his graph. At 5min km (12kph) pace my cadence was pretty slow about 152-154 probably a bit too slow, interestingly at 4min km pace things had speed up to 180 which sounds optimal, but my technique was still seriously flawed whether running and striding slowly or quickly. The video below is at 4min km pace.

 

When I get back on the treadmill later this week or early next I will check what my cadence is like now at 4min km pace. Prior to working on my technique I had a 5km personal best of about 19 minutes which I managed to get down to 17.42, so it’s possible that I may now run at 4min km pace with a slightly lower cadence because I’m a bit stronger and use my glutes more and therefore cover more ground per stride. I’ll report back when I know more …

So the running technique tip is to think about how you are completing each stride not just count how many times you stride. Both factors need consideration.

Written by Brian Martin