New Study shows Shod running more efficient??

Hey Ahcuah - I just want to point that this particular point - turnover vs stride length - really is a highly-discussed topic, and your conclusion is non-mainstream, and that's the only reason I keep nagging you about it. Really, I want to stress that I appreciate your contributions tremendously (and hope you don't get the impression that I'm just giving you a hard time for the hell of it).

namaste
 
Hey Ahcuah - I just want to point that this particular point - turnover vs stride length - really is a highly-discussed topic, and your conclusion is non-mainstream
namaste
Willie, don't we as barefoot runners already go against mainstream thought? Maybe Ahchua has a valid point. I sure can't argue him just like I can't with you.

Yes Willie, I do have a metronome and also a garmin and I do not go any faster when I pick up my cadence. For me it is just extremely tiring to run at a high cadence above 180. I also end up with aches in my lower legs when I run over 180 just like when I run at a slow cadence I get aches in my thighs.
 
Sigh. Let's make sure I am clear in what I am claiming. I am saying that, for a given (fixed) speed, a shorter stride can be less efficient than a longer stride.

Answer me a question: assume you are going 3m/s with a 1 meter step length. Now, cut your step length to 1/2 meter, so that you have to take twice as many steps as before in order to maintain your 3m/s. Is your shorter stride more or less efficient? How about if you cut it to 1/4 meter? 1/8?
 
Sigh. Let's make sure I am clear in what I am claiming. I am saying that, for a given (fixed) speed, a shorter stride can be less efficient than a longer stride.

(sigh, just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, lol) I understand that and I'm saying just the opposite, based on plenty of experience and also overwhelming amounts of advice and experienced-based testimony from god knows how many runners who have improved their running form by increasing their cadence and shortening their stride.

You're talking from a purely analytical, theoretical, numbers standpoint but not saying much about the real world. I suspect your formula might be true when a runner tips the scale into the ad absurdum range of turnover rate, but for most of us, a bump-up in cadence has a positive effect. This has been true for decades, which, again, is why I keep coming backl to this theory of yours.

I can't relate directly to your 3m/s and fractions as measurements because, well, nobody can. Talk in terms of turnover rate, like I tried to do in an earlier post.

Ask me instead: Do you honestly feel that going from a 165 turnover rate at a given pace to 185 will increase your efficieny?

And I'll answer: hells yeah I do. I know it does because I've done it and have only benefited from the change. As I believe Olle mentioned earlier, shortening the stride has a positive effect on reducing (energy-wasting) vertical movement (among many other benefits that I don't think your formulas take into account). So, it may well work out paper the way you say, but human biomechanics/physiology are lot more complex than that.

Anyway, the reason I came back to this thread is because I was thinking about this study the other day while running. I was wondering if the drop in efficiency noted in the "barefoot" sessions may well have simply come from the runners not being as relaxed running on the treadmill as when they were wearing the Mayflys. It could be very possible that they were tensed up and not allowing the feet to relax. All muscle usage is reflected in the testing equipment, it doesn't matter where the effort is specifically going.
 
Ask me instead: Do you honestly feel that going from a 165 turnover rate at a given pace to 185 will increase your efficiency?

Then why aren't you already using a 185 turnover rate?

In fact, as an experienced runner, you are probably already using your most efficient turnover rate.

And now we make a change in how you run so that you change your turnover rate. By definition, that change is NO LONGER your most efficient turnover rate.

So your efficiency goes down.

What is so hard to understand about this?
 
What is so hard to understand about this?

ditto, lol.

It was a hypothetcal/rhetorical question. I did change my turnover rate - I upped it from the loping 165-ish I mentioned and now run with about 192-196. I actually run with metronome once in a while... And no, it's not true in the least that a person will automatically run at his most efficient turnover. Especially if that runner is going from shod to barefoot. In fact, it's probably the most important thing a runner in transition needs to learn - move those legs faster and shorter.

Again, this is why I keep harping on this point. It's one of the most important things and basic things a runner new to BF needs to get used to, and you're suggesting the opposite.

Have you seriously never heard or read about increasing turnover rate and shortening stride to improve form???
 
I am saying that, for a given (fixed) speed, a shorter stride can be less efficient than a longer stride.

The opposite is also true. Too long or too short is inefficient, so why focus on too short a stride ? As you said, only one cadence is most efficient at a given speed for a specific physiology, and people need to find what is best for them. For some that means shortening their stride, perhaps for some it means lengthening it.
 
OK, folks. Then you tell us just what it was in this study that led to the 3% decrease in efficiency. The only two things not controlled for were footwear and stride length (which, based on constant speed, means frequency also varied). They took off their shoes, shortened their stride length by 3%, and saw a 3% decrease in efficiency.

So, explain it. Shoes? Stride length? Taking off their shoes and due to unfamiliarity with running barefoot still ran bouncy with shortened stride?

So, come on. What's your explanation?

And you know what? I'm well aware that for proper barefoot running form you lower your center of mass and increase your cadence. The question is whether these runners in the study with "some" "barefoot" running experience knew that, and whether their efficiency suffered as a result. And by the way Ken Bob also notes that, after running barefoot a while you also end up lengthening your stride length.
 
Ahcuah, I think you unintentionally brought up a very good point. Whats the test subjects experience with barefoot running? Is it possible that someone who is pretty experienced and has great form barefoot might be slightly more efficient with that same form in shoes? I think it is possible because the foot won't have to work as much and won't be reacting with the ground surface which could possibly boost efficiency.
 
So, come on. What's your explanation?

:confused: Hmmm. I'm not sure what you're asking frankly. Within this thread folks have offered a number of opportunities for "efficiency" to be affected. However the only thing I was pointing out is that generalizations about a shortened stride equating to inefficiency are misleading. Too short = inefficient, too long = inefficient. If they shortened thier stride in this study when they ran (almost) barefoot, they could also have changed their forward lean, their overall posture, they could have been less relaxed when (almost) barefoot, etc, etc, etc. There are too many unaccounted for variables to draw a direct line between cadence/stride change and inefficiency. I may have misread your intent, and if so apologize. I wasn't trying to tick you off, just makin' a point.
 
It could also be that the Mayflys actually do give you a little bump in propulsion - I've done enough running and racing in shoes over the decades to know that racing shoes work. Of course, switching from "training" shoes (Nike Structures et al) to racing shoes also forces a more midfoot (read: shorter, compare to heel-striking/overstriding) landing and snappier turnover rate ;)

I also know that the few times I've run BF on a treadmill I felt ridiculous and anything but relaxed. If you're not relaxed, you're wasting energy somewhere. Could be as simple as gritting the teeth and tensing up the shoulders. Who the heck really knows?

And who really cares? My whole motivation for perpetuating this thread was to make very clear that, on the whole, shortening the stride und boosting the turnover rate is still the first place to go when looking for easy, safe improvement in overall running form and, yep, efficiency (essentially the same thing).
 

Support Your Club

Natural Running Center

Forum statistics

Threads
19,094
Messages
183,434
Members
8,688
Latest member
Jojo9090