Showing posts with label running style. Show all posts
Showing posts with label running style. Show all posts

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Some improvement running at Bethpage

Making strides
Today's run (Bethpage trail): 5.1 miles

I'm happy to report that I was not the dog's dinner on today's run. I wanted to break away from my neighborhood and headed over to Bethpage to run the bike trail. I know I should be running 6 or more miles at least once a week to raise my base, but that hasn't been happening. I wasn't prepared to do six today, but I thought five was reasonable.

With 9 MPH winds, the real-feel temperature was 42°, although it felt much chillier. If my running jacket hadn't been ruined yesterday, I may have worn it as a top layer. I was lucky not to have that option because I heated up a lot as I progressed. By the end, I was regretting my second layer, hat and gloves.

The run went okay, but the hilly route felt ponderous. I felt a little rough throughout the first half mile and realized that I'd only covered a tenth of my targeted distance. I hoped that my aerobic engine would soon kick in. I cruised along, tolerating the ups and downs of the rolling course and dreading the mini-mountain I knew I'd need to climb at the start of my last mile.

Most of the run was at my usual speed but, near the end, I began experimenting with different pacing. I shortened my stride and increased my cadence while maintaining the same level of effort. I didn't know this at that time, but this change provided a measurable improvement in my pace.

I don't know if I can permanently adapt to this running style, but if I'm successful, I should be able to improve on my current performance. I plan to try doing it for longer periods in hopes that it will begin to feel more natural.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Running efficiently is naturally wrong

Does form follow function?
Today's run (street): 3.25 miles

Remember when you were young and your parents taught you how to run? Of course not. Kids learn to run naturally through a combination of confidence, impatience and excitement. I was thinking about this on my run this morning, as I put attention to where my feet were falling and the length of my stride. It occurred to me that all the books, magazines and web articles I've read about improving running technique are only corrupting what we comfortably do by nature.

I realize that this is a provocative statement. Landing on your fore foot and shortening your stride will make you a faster and more efficient runner, right? I'm not sure. I've observed enough runners to confidently say that the way you look while running is not a true indicator of how well you can actually run. I remember running on the Bethpage trail and seeing a woman ahead of me who was pronating so badly that it was making me dizzy. I increased my pace to pass her, until I realized I'd never catch her. Inefficient as she looked, she totally outclassed me in terms of speed.

I haven't given up on improving the way I run, but I'm no longer willing to fight nature to do it. I've been running in minimal shoes for three years to promote mid-foot landing, but all my running shoes still show wear on the lateral heel, along with the mid-foot. I'm okay with that because (knock wood) I've had very few running injuries during the same time period. I'll still think about the position of my arms and height of my knees when it crosses my mind during a run. The fact is, whether I do everything "right" or go with what feels natural, I tend to run just about the same.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

A good run today - but why?


Today's run (street): 3.6 miles

I thought about yesterday's NY Times article when I went out for my morning run. As I took off, I realized how much I've focused on mid-foot landing at the start of every run. Today would be different. Let my foot fall where it may!

It was another perfect running day. I appreciated the experience, and was pleasantly surprised to see few cars and buses on the road. I went out earlier than normal because I had business in the city and needed to catch a morning train. My stride felt completely fluid and I wondered whether I was running more efficiently by not attempting to land on my mid-foot. It could also have been the cool, dry weather that was making the run feel easier.

Moving along this way, I'd hoped to see at the end that I'd compiled an amazing time. No luck there, it was just slightly better than my normal moderate pace (faster than easy, slower than brisk). Still, it was an improvement of 15-20 seconds (per mile) over what I'd averaged this past week. Was it the decision to run without thinking about where my foot landed? Or was it that I had some additional energy today? Perhaps it was the fact that I pushed just a little harder this morning.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Mid-foot running, what used to be right is wrong

Coffee bad good, land on your mid-foot heel
Today's run (street): 3.25 miles

There are some things that are constantly reported by the media in terms of safety and/or health benefits. Coffee is one. Years ago I read that consumption of coffee is tied to nervous system impairment and hyper-stimulation of the adrenal glands. Recent studies now position it as a super-food with minimum health risks related to the over-consumption of caffeine.

Another subject is barefoot-style running. Back in the olden days (pre-80's), running shoes were minimal in design and people suffered injuries when running. The answer to that was generation after generation of over-built and highly cushioned running shoes with corrective technology to control pronation. But the injury rate remained exactly the same.

Following studies at Harvard University and publication of the book Born to Run, minimal shoe design returned to the marketplace and an emphasis was put on mid-foot landing and "natural" running style. These shoes have captured almost 10% of the market and I'll admit that I've bought into it as well.

Today, the New York Times published an article in their Well blog, with research supporting heel striking as the "more physiologically economical running form, by a considerable margin." What!?? I was very surprised to read this, because the minimalist approach seems more logical. Why wouldn't a shoe that supports a bio-mechanically correct stride be the better choice?

According to the studies, heel striking seems to facilitate more efficient energy expenditure. This is the opposite from everything I've read before about the subject. I'm not sure what to do with this new information. I'll probably continue to use lighter, flatter and more minimally constructed running shoes because I prefer them. Besides that, despite all my efforts to run with an efficient mid-foot stride, my outsoles still show quite a bit of heel wear.

Friday, July 13, 2012

This technique may have made me faster

Does back leg lift = faster running?
Today's run (street): 4.25 miles

I'm out of the office today and Monday and the weekend will be busy. We'll have a house full of people starting this afternoon and that will continue through Sunday. The major activity is on Saturday and the day will start early, so I'm probably going to need to skip tomorrow's run. I tried to make up for that by running a little extra distance today.

Conditions were pleasant when I left on my run around 7:00 AM. I tried to maintain a decent speed and thought about how my default pace has slowed over the last few years. I'd say, overall, that my speed has remained consistent. The difference is that my median pace seems to have slowed by about ten seconds since 2009. It could be that when I used the FR50 and 60 with a foot pod, my times were recorded more accurately (and faster) than with the FR210.

About halfway through today's run, I looked at my shadow and noticed I was running with a low degree of back leg lift. I've noticed that better runner's legs come up fairly high after toe-off and I suspect that helps their speed by reducing the amount of time their feet touch the ground. Inspired, I worked on bringing up my leg as I ran. I'm not sure if it made me run faster, but I did feel it in my hamstrings.

I'll look at my pacing across the timeline after I upload my data to Garmin Connect to see if my speed improved after making that change. I did finish with a decent overall pace, so perhaps it made a difference. It would be great if a small change like that could have made a measurable effect on my pace. It almost seems too easy. Then again, it did illustrate my need to do more core work.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Back on the Karhu Fast 2's

Karhu Fast 2 -- I wish they ran as good as they look
Today's run (treadmill): 2.3 miles

I didn't want to deal with dark and icy roads this morning so last night I set up my gear for a treadmill workout. As much as I prefer running outdoors I do appreciate the time that I save in the morning by staying inside. I would usually choose my Saucony Kinvaras for the treadmill but the soles were caked with grime -- a combination of road salt, sand and mud. I wore the Kinvaras on Saturday after the snow plows and the residue from the street made them unsuitable for the tread belt. I decided to give the Karhu Fast 2's another chance. I was curious to see if I liked them any better after a few week's layoff.

I was tired this morning and needed my alarm to wake me up. I knew from my energy level that today would be a maintenance run and nothing more. I started slower that usual, around 6 mph, and gradually built my speed to 7 (an 8:34 pace). The Karhu's did fine but they just don't feel ideal for my stride. It may just be the height of the mid sole. Its "fulcrum" feature also may not well with my mid foot landing style. That didn't mean the shoes failed to perform, in fact they took everything I threw at them. It was really about the feel compared to my Kinvaras and GTS-10's that move more naturally with my foot. I had a decent run this morning and I managed through the treadmill experience despite the combination of boredom and terror that comes with that. I may treat myself to the elliptical tomorrow depending on the weather.
 

blogger templates | Webtalks