Running Technique. The Quest for the Holy Grail
So yesterday while running a 1/2 marathon, I had plenty of opportunity to observe many different running styles of some pretty fast people. It was amazing how different people run. Some of the techniques, if taped, would have been severely critiqued. The amazing thing is that these techniques seemed to work for these people. This then got me thinking. Are we thinking to much about run technique? Are we trying to hard to emulate perfect (ideal) running form when structurally this may not be possible?
The one thing about the human body is that it is one of the most efficient machines ever designed. By virtue of a body's particular design, it is going to find the most efficient way to move from Point A to Point B. Essentially, movement is just a series of patterns aimed at keeping the Center of Gravity within our base of support. If we don't, we fall. If we look at John W's video on his running form we'll see that his left arm sticks out as his left foof crosses midline. This is a compensation needed to maintain is center of gravity within his base of support.
So to run better/ faster, are we better off trying to change technique or alter design. Seems we can try to change technique all we want. If there is however, an underlying structural issues will this change lead to the most efficient running form?
I'll have to continue this later gotta go earn some SAU's. Look forward to peoples thoughts
Comments
This is my basic belief as well ... running is a series of controlled jumps or hops meant to move that COG forward as fast and as efficiently as possible. The primary motive forces are provided by the fore/aft flexion/extension of the hip and knee joints. All the other motion we see in arms, body rotation, foot flail, etc, are happening as the body tries to accomplish that primary goal.
If we feel, or are told, that something doesn't look right, it's because either (a) our body is not symmetrical, and so there has to be a compensation for that somewhere else to avoid falling while both feet are off the ground, (b) there is a muscle weakness or imbalance unilaterally, which forces the same type of compensation, or (c) we're doing something that is not needed for the primary goal of efficient forward motion.
When trying to fix it, I rely not on trying to adjust the adjustment ... like trying to control my arm motion so it "looks" better ... but on paying attention to what is happening to my balance and center of gravity, "How Smooth Does That Feel?" The best place to bring this out is during strides. I try to let my mind go blank, just stare down the track, and attempt to become as calm as I can inside my body while moving forward as fast as I can within the bounds of remaining smooth. That allows the neuromuscular connections do do their thing without interference from my woefully slow conscious thoughts. Hopefully, enough work like that will imprint the best way for me to run.
This method may not work as well for those who do have significant muscular weakness or imbalance. They might be better served by focused strength work, drills, and breaking the process down to component parts. But always remember, the thing you are trying to do is move the hips and knee joints properly to achieve those hops from one foot to another as efficiently as possible.
For all of us here that ran for hours and hours and hours a month and already have a few thousand miles in there bodies I do really believe there is no way of a MAJOR change in running technique. We have earned a very high level of running economy just by running as often and as much as we did.
In my mind i believe that for us as Triathletes it's much more important to run economically than to run "fast"!
I must state here that there is a big difference in "running fast" in a runners mind as we are thinking of "running fast" ... when I'm very proud of my PR on the HM (1:23:xx) all my running-only friends are just smiling because for them a "fast" HM is below 1:15:xx
For a beginner it's a different story - if you start your training the right way (eg steps/min, moving arms, ...) it's much more easily to get faster real soon and you don't run into a plateau - where everything gets frustrating the first time - very fast.
What I'm wondering is if we want to change technique are we better off trying to change technique first or look at the structure. I'll use a common car analogy to explain. If you look at a cars frame and its bent, its not going to operate the same as it would if the frame was straight. It doesn't matter what you do to it its still going to drive differently. So maybe if we alter the "structure" running mechanics will automatically change to become more ideal.
To run better, we're trying to change technique. That is true for pure running in isolation ... say, if we were running a 5 k fully recovered and not going back for more later that day. However, our running is different - we're (a) running after getting off a bike, (b) running distances where there a serious erosion of natural technique, and (c) going back 5 or more times the same week, week after week, month after month, to do the same thing, (d) battling against other imbalances and structural problems introduced by cycling and swimming. With these conditions making our type of running what it is, the technique will accomplish improved efficiency where we are able to go the same distance at a cost of less energy, but it will only get us so far. The structural stuff has to be in place for the technique to be sustained ... be it over the course of a race, a workout, a block, or a season.
I watched this video analysis from TTBIKEFit and then decided to use the Gazelle stride for the Shamrock Half Marathon last weekend. Clocked my best time for the race in 1:40:14, 6 min under my 2010 race time on the same course. I kept thinking about "air time" during the race which felt easy the first 10 miles using EN pace strategy. The last 3 miles were tough to keep the stride but I'm thinking if I had trained with the stride it may have been easier at the end.