Thanks for clarifying. I'm playing around with very similar stuff and finding the same thing. I'm also for first time ever, doing strength training specifically posterior chain. Getting pretty good results but some cramping and tightness on runs.
The Running Form Thread
- Thread starter Last Place Jason
- Start date
Thanks for taking the time to respond Damian, and I'm enjoying the conversation now. I will try the things both you and Abide are discussing and see what happens. My hip-sink is pretty minimal, and may not even be something I want to do when I can run slightly faster paces again. As Damian said, it's hard to visualize exactly what we mean with our descriptions.
OK I've had some time to read this a bit more carefully. When I sink my hips down a bit, and really, it is just a bit, I don't think it means my COM has to be raised more than normal before the next footfall. Rather, my overall height is lowered throughout the gait cycle. At least, that is my subjective experience of it. I agree that cadence might lower a bit, at least on logical grounds because I haven't tested it while running, with a concomitant increase in force application. As someone who doesn't worry too much about cadence per se, this isn't really a concern for me. My cadence at 10mm pace is about 164, but gets up to around 180 by 7:30 mm pace, which is the kind of pace I want to run anyway. The effect that I notice most with my mild hip-sink is a feeling of somewhat greater stability and smoothness throughout the gait cycle. And again, this may not even matter once I'm able to run a bit faster again, as I feel my form tends to feel pretty good once I'm below 9mm pace and really good around 8mm pace. My sense is that a lot of form issues disappear or become irrelevant at faster paces, at least for me, which is part of the reason it's so baffling when other runners purposely run slower than they're capable of, for a given distance. When I read that the elite Kenyan runners work first on pace, then on distance, that made complete sense to me. The general emphasis on mileage, whether per run or weekly, that one finds in running circles, seems terribly misguided to me. Edit: I think pace, and controlling a variety of paces per distance, is the fundamental of running. But I'm only arguing from personal experience--I have no experience in coaching, and a nearly non-existent interest in running as a spectator sport. Nonetheless, once I can run faster paces again, I will continue to check out the hip sink and the ideas discussed just now by Abide and Damian and see what clicks. I'm not ruling anything out.
That makes sense if your height always stays relative.
What is your take on cadence, sorry if you posted somewhere else? I'm curious because I was wondering if from an energy conservation standpoint if it makes more sense to focus on training at a steady state cadence or something more variable as you do? Does that make sense?
What is your take on cadence, sorry if you posted somewhere else? I'm curious because I was wondering if from an energy conservation standpoint if it makes more sense to focus on training at a steady state cadence or something more variable as you do? Does that make sense?
Here's what I've gleaned from my readings on cadence (I think point five speaks specifically to your question):
1.) Speed is a function of stride rate (cadence) and stride length.
2.) Both rate and length are effects, not causes. Stride rate is an effect of greater muscle activation; stride length is an effect of greater force application.
3.) Most runners increase both muscle activation and force application to achieve greater speed, and have a natural ability to adjust (or 'gear') the ratio of rate (activation) to length (force/torque) for optimal metabolic efficiency.
4.) If, however, you hold speed constant, and increase either muscle activation or force application, then the other variable must decrease.
5.) Both muscle activation and force application involve energy costs, so there is no inherent advantage in increasing one while holding the other constant (thus increasing speed) or decreasing it (maintaining speed constant). You are merely displacing the work of one by increasing the work of the other. If the ratio becomes sub-optimal as a result of these manipulations, you will tire more quickly.
6.) Nonetheless, different runners may favor one or the other side of the rate-length ratio, so that there exist what may be termed "rate-dominant" runners, and "length-dominant" runners.
7.) For a rate-dominant runner, it may be useful to increase stride length/force application when fatigue sets in, in order to relieve muscle activation. For stride-dominant runners, it may be useful to increase stride rate/muscle activation when fatigue sets in, in order to relieve force application.
8.) For over-striders, typically those coming from a shod running background, it may be useful to consciously increase stride rate in order to decrease stride length, holding speed constant.
9.) For those with a good foot landing and posture, it is probably pointless to consciously manipulate stride rate (muscle activation) or stride length (force application), although a higher cadence may be somewhat useful in reducing injury risk, as there is less force application per step.
1.) Speed is a function of stride rate (cadence) and stride length.
2.) Both rate and length are effects, not causes. Stride rate is an effect of greater muscle activation; stride length is an effect of greater force application.
3.) Most runners increase both muscle activation and force application to achieve greater speed, and have a natural ability to adjust (or 'gear') the ratio of rate (activation) to length (force/torque) for optimal metabolic efficiency.
4.) If, however, you hold speed constant, and increase either muscle activation or force application, then the other variable must decrease.
5.) Both muscle activation and force application involve energy costs, so there is no inherent advantage in increasing one while holding the other constant (thus increasing speed) or decreasing it (maintaining speed constant). You are merely displacing the work of one by increasing the work of the other. If the ratio becomes sub-optimal as a result of these manipulations, you will tire more quickly.
6.) Nonetheless, different runners may favor one or the other side of the rate-length ratio, so that there exist what may be termed "rate-dominant" runners, and "length-dominant" runners.
7.) For a rate-dominant runner, it may be useful to increase stride length/force application when fatigue sets in, in order to relieve muscle activation. For stride-dominant runners, it may be useful to increase stride rate/muscle activation when fatigue sets in, in order to relieve force application.
8.) For over-striders, typically those coming from a shod running background, it may be useful to consciously increase stride rate in order to decrease stride length, holding speed constant.
9.) For those with a good foot landing and posture, it is probably pointless to consciously manipulate stride rate (muscle activation) or stride length (force application), although a higher cadence may be somewhat useful in reducing injury risk, as there is less force application per step.
Why does everything running related have to be in shades of grey 
Ha! My question is why do so many runners seek absolutes--HR, cadence, etc. . . .Why does everything running related have to be in shades of grey
P.S., I just added an edit to the second-to-above comment, taken from my readings of Coach Dean.
Edit: I think pace, and controlling a variety of paces per distance, is the fundamental of running.
It's easier for me to process. And then you had to throw in the "just listen to your body" comment. I hate that haha.
On a serious note I do think I am one of those dumb runners where concrete feedback like pace, elevation and HR helps with my training. I have not run with a garmin in a few years and I am actually thinking about purchasing one for the feedback. I honestly couldn't tell you the difference between a 7:30 mm pace and a 9:00 mm pace and I think I tend to run too fast overall.
That was in reference to my injury, though, right? I do feel like I have a good sense of how acute injuries heal, and when they can be tested a bit. The TOFP I had though was completely baffling until I found about the concept of 'referred pain.'
As for controlling pace, I'm not saying it's necessary for recreational running, just that it's fundamental to serious running. In Chicago I ran for two and half years with no concern for any of this stuff and did just fine. I slowly improved over time, but made no real effort to improve. I just went out and ran, some days better than others. That's why I'm always skeptical when someone says they've been improving using method x, when the sample is n=1. Unless you've been training for a long time and have plateaued, you will continue to improve no matter what. So really we're talking about the rate improvement. If someone takes up the Maf method and tells me they've improved, that means nothing to me. I would need to know whether or not their rate of improvement was better compared to another method, something that can only be tested in aggregate, using a large sample of runners and controlling for myriad factors. That's why I like to simply ask what the pro runners do. They're a ready-made sample size with a high emphasis on maximizing performance. From what I've read, the ability to run at lactate threshold, not VO2max (of which HR is an index), is the best predictor of performance, and so that's what's emphasized these days in elite training protocols.
Anyway, right now I'm enjoying the process of intellectualizing running, partly because I realize it's important to be able to do this for as long as I'm able, but partly just because I enjoy over-thinking things. Running is absurdly simple in a lot of ways, but when you ask yourself: what is it, fundamentally? I think the answer is that it's just about running a certain distance at a certain speed. If we can gain mastery over that--basically 'pace'--we will become more accomplished runners. From a fitness point of view, this may largely irrelevant, but it's an interesting challenge that can spice up the routine. So in a year's time I would like to be able to say, OK, I'm running six miles today, my max pace for that is x, and do it, just as I can now say, in strength training, my max bench at y reps is x weight. Not a big deal, but it makes it a little more fun for me.
I got a Garmin in June, and it's been useful to me. I had no idea of what paces I was running, but I kept reading stuff that used pace as a reference point in training protocols, so I became curious. I still have a very weakly developed sense of pace when I run Garminless, but I aim to get better at it. Once I control it, I'll probably leave the Garmin at home most of the time. Right now I'm running without it while I rehab, so I don't overdo it, and it's nice. I can see how Barefoot Gentile has found it liberating to run gadgetless.
HR I don't worry about, but I have a lot of experience with aerobic training. I have a good feel for what a sustainable level of exertion is for me for a given amount of time or distance at any given state of fitness. I would like to run one run a week at lactate threshold (medium pace), then one over that doing intervals & hills (fast pace), and then one somewhat under threshold for my LSD run (slow pace). If you don't feel like you have a good sense of your own exertion levels, then a HR monitor can be useful, just as my Garmin has been useful to me in gaining a more intuitive grasp of pace.
OK, time to take some more pain killers . . .
NickW
Guest
Ok, I am a simpleton, so I am trying to understand how I tilt or untilt my pelvis. Do I even have a pelvis? J/k on the question but it was used to show my point that I don't understand. I am trying to follow along with you all and maybe learn from you smarter peoples, but this I do not understand. I also don't understand the actively tightening of the abs. I think I do this, but it is natural from straightening out my spine while I run and not something I have to consciously think about, if that makes sense.
I meant this one "3.) Most runners increase both muscle activation and force application to achieve greater speed, and have a natural ability to adjust (or 'gear') the ratio of rate (activation) to length (force/torque) for optimal metabolic efficiency."
I totally understand the philosophy of listening to your body when dealing with an injury, that is definitely more subjective.
I agree, goal setting is important for me too. Progress keeps me motivated, challenged and dedicated. I'm too much of a screw off to just do whatever I feel like 100% of the time. I do like to leave some room for spontenaity though.
It kind of works for me to try to mimic a thrust used in other endeavors the only difference is you hold it there.
I meant this one "3.) Most runners increase both muscle activation and force application to achieve greater speed, and have a natural ability to adjust (or 'gear') the ratio of rate (activation) to length (force/torque) for optimal metabolic efficiency."
Well, I do think there's room for considerable tweaking, but I think in general the body knows what it's doing bio-mechanically, so much so that we don't even have to listen to it a lot of the time. Perhaps if someone is coming from a very un-athletic background, and missed out on developing some of these natural abilities in childhood, a heavier set of interventions/manipulations may be justified. For example, when I was learning karate in my mid to late twenties, decent punching technique came fairly quickly, but that is because the mechanics are largely the same as when you swing a baseball bat or hockey stick, stuff I learned to do as a kid.
I totally understand the philosophy of listening to your body when dealing with an injury, that is definitely more subjective.
The pain killers are also having an interesting effect on my subjectivity. I wonder if it would be a huge mistake to add a nice bottle of IPA into the mix.
I agree, goal setting is important for me too. Progress keeps me motivated, challenged and dedicated. I'm too much of a screw off to just do whatever I feel like 100% of the time. I do like to leave some room for spontenaity though.
Yah, I probably give the impression that I'm overly strict about this stuff, but really, I just use them as guidelines. I always feel free to change plans if I'm not feeling it or feeling something different. I have no specific performance goals, just general improvement and enjoyment.
Well, I do think there's room for considerable tweaking, but I think in general the body knows what it's doing bio-mechanically, so much so that we don't even have to listen to it a lot of the time. Perhaps if someone is coming from a very un-athletic background, and missed out on developing some of these natural abilities in childhood, a heavier set of interventions/manipulations may be justified. For example, when I was learning karate in my mid to late twenties, decent punching technique came fairly quickly, but that is because the mechanics are largely the same as when you swing a baseball bat or hockey stick, stuff I learned to do as a kid.
I totally understand the philosophy of listening to your body when dealing with an injury, that is definitely more subjective.
The pain killers are also having an interesting effect on my subjectivity. I wonder if it would be a huge mistake to add a nice bottle of IPA into the mix.
I agree, goal setting is important for me too. Progress keeps me motivated, challenged and dedicated. I'm too much of a screw off to just do whatever I feel like 100% of the time. I do like to leave some room for spontenaity though.
Yah, I probably give the impression that I'm overly strict about this stuff, but really, I just use them as guidelines. I always feel free to change plans if I'm not feeling it or feeling something different. I have no specific performance goals, just general improvement and enjoyment.
Yah, that's one of my favorite workout routines. Is that how all this Plank business got started?
Yeah a 22oz'r of Arrogant bastard or a bottle of Ommengang Abbey Ale should make it a fun night!
I think your explanation about when tweaking is important in the list makes a lot of sense, initally in a race there really is no need to tweak as your body does handle itself pretty well. Once fatigue sets in I can see how actively modifying your form can get you further, faster.
Lots to comment on but I'll address the issue of pelvic thrusting. It's one of my favorite subjects.
The movement we are looking for is not thrusting actually. You DON"T want to push your hips forward. It's more of a tilt. The best way to create this movement is with the floor laying exercise:
Lie on floor with knees bent. You'll notice a natural curve in your lower, lumbar spine. Gently press your lower back into the floor. Notice which muscles you use to do this. Now stand up and recreate that movement. The key is not using your glutes. It's using deep, internal ab (core) muscles. You can also advance in the exercise by moving your feet away from you. The farther you move your feet away, the harder it is. With knees bent, you can also try lifting each leg slowly, one at a time off a couple inches. All while gently pressing lower back into the floor.
In regards to breathing constriction question: This shouldn't restrict breathing if done correctly. The key is that it is deep, internal, and very low abs. You don't want to use your upper abs at all. Make sure you are breathing during the floor exercise.
In a rush but wanted to make sure you were trying correctly. Questions???
The movement we are looking for is not thrusting actually. You DON"T want to push your hips forward. It's more of a tilt. The best way to create this movement is with the floor laying exercise:
Lie on floor with knees bent. You'll notice a natural curve in your lower, lumbar spine. Gently press your lower back into the floor. Notice which muscles you use to do this. Now stand up and recreate that movement. The key is not using your glutes. It's using deep, internal ab (core) muscles. You can also advance in the exercise by moving your feet away from you. The farther you move your feet away, the harder it is. With knees bent, you can also try lifting each leg slowly, one at a time off a couple inches. All while gently pressing lower back into the floor.
In regards to breathing constriction question: This shouldn't restrict breathing if done correctly. The key is that it is deep, internal, and very low abs. You don't want to use your upper abs at all. Make sure you are breathing during the floor exercise.
In a rush but wanted to make sure you were trying correctly. Questions???
Not to change the subject from the "run like you fuck engage in adult activities" discussion, but what are the collective thoughts on running form and trails?
Since we're all form geeks and trail runners (I think), how do these elements of form change from the unchanging roads to dynamic trails?
Since we're all form geeks and trail runners (I think), how do these elements of form change from the unchanging roads to dynamic trails?
