“The literature” is evidence based, scientific studies that look to investigate different issues. There’s no data to suggest that modifying foot strike, cadence or stride length improve economy. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. See work by Kram or McGreggor.
“The literature” is evidence based, scientific studies that look to investigate different issues. There’s no data to suggest that modifying foot strike, cadence or stride length improve economy. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. See work by Kram or McGreggor.
True. But the literature about foot strike, cadence, and stride length is extremely, extremely thin. A wise person would use additional observational methods to form his knowledge base about the topic.
Simply because scientific methods haven’t identified a benefit to altering stride characteristics, doesn’t mean that altering one’s stride can’t be beneficial. Gravity existed long before scientists discovered it.
The problem with most of these types of studies is that they tend to have a low level of control. Meaning that they are rarely large enough to control for the numerous factors that can influence the outcomes. I am not sure which studies you are referring to but I’m curious as to how they measure economy and how they tried to change stride length. This is not a criticism of the authors but rather a reality that these studies don’t have the financial resources to conduct definitive or even highly persuasive studies. A p<0.05 means the differences are not likely due to chance but does not mean that the author’s explanation of the differences are correct.
Prior to doing much reading on proper running technique, I ran like the typical non-runner (i.e. cadence in the 70s with a lot of vertical movement). I’m not sure how my economy compares between now and then, but I have little doubt that getting my cadence to ~90 has made me a better runner. I have never measured stride length but some simple math suggests that there have been changes (e.g. I used to run ~8mpm at ~75 cadence or 600 steps/mile vs now I would run a 7:30 at 90 cadence or 675 steps/mile).
“The literature” is evidence based, scientific studies that look to investigate different issues. There’s no data to suggest that modifying foot strike, cadence or stride length improve economy. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. See work by Kram or McGreggor.
I would suggest you try to look more into what the top coaches do that create world champions.
Its a great video BTW, but it does show to remind built on what you have and not on what looks classic.