Running Economy (Read 1345 times)

"Relatively well-studied aspects of form include foot strike position and stride length. Despite some barefoot running advocates' claims that forefoot striking is inherently more economical than rearfoot striking, this wasn't true in Lieberman's most recent study. Lieberman et al. raise the possibility that forefoot striking permits greater elastic energy recovery through the Achilles tendon but also requires more calf muscle activity to control the landing of the foot, thus offering no net advantage over rearfoot striking.

"Stride length and stride frequency have also been researched in some detail. (The two are inversely related; if your pace is held constant, you must decrease your stride length to increase your stride frequency and vice versa.) In the early 1980s, Cavanagh and Williams found that, when subjects tried several different stride lengths, their RE was best around the stride length that they used naturally. "There is zero evidence that overstriding is rampant," says an almost-strident Kram. "The myth of 'increase your stride rate, become more economical' is bunk." Presumably Kram isn't referring to the small percentage of runners who exhibit genuine overstriding and can be given feedback to improve RE, as reported in a 1994 Journal of Applied Physiology paper by Don Morgan and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro."

Above from Running Times article. (bold mine)

Thought the above was interesting, considering how prevelant both forefoot and stride-rates are in the available literature (aka the Web, and other sources of questionable authority).

Of course, saying stride-rate and forefoot strike doesn't affect RE, is not the same as saying they don't prevent injury or make you faster.

If people get worked up over this I'd suggest not to worry about it and just run more. 

You know Spaniel - this single statement can probably be used to answer 90% of all the questions ever asked about running.....

"Don't worry about it and just run more".....

'least that's what I think

Some pretty cool pictures were taken of the footstrike of the men's and women's runners in the 10k field at the Olympic Trials this weekend. You can see them below. I think it's pretty safe to assume that these are efficient runners. As these pictures make very clear, footstrike is widely variable among these runners. I think this suggests that changing one's footstrike intentionally in the hope that one might become more efficient is a fool's errand.

I agree that the body seems to fall into a naturally efficient stride over time, but I would say also that it is important to run a variety of paces and over a variety of terrains, perhaps especially early in the runner's career. My unscientific opinion is that we are capable of developing a wide variety of footstrikes that vary according to pace, terrain, and levels of fatigue. We should avoid reductive "either-ors" in this area and in many other areas.

I thought this thread was about my family?

Do folks refer to your family as "The Economists?"

hard to know for sure by the quick one snapshot of those runners striking but it almost looks to me that there are  about an even # forefoot strikers as there are heel strikers.  and a few flat foot strikers as well

What kind of things rob economy?

Having your shoe come untied.

Hitting a hurdle.

Hitting a runner in front of you and going down.

Bankers?

offshore manufacturing