Author Topic: Cross Training: Running  (Read 399890 times)

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #250 on: 02 February, 2010, 04:37:13 pm »
Another 25 minutes at 10.5kph on the treadmill.

Remembered to bring mp3 player in and so I had the benefit of banging choons. Certainly makes it much easier than hearing each and every footfall.

First time in ages I've felt like I could have gone on for longer.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #251 on: 07 February, 2010, 12:09:45 pm »
Just done a 10k fun run.
It hurt my calves quite a bit. I seemed to have a very high cadence compared to everyone else. I tried slowing it down and taking bigger strides which seemed a bit better. I did end up going back to my fast cadence now and then though. A good dash for the uphill finish made me dizzy when I crossed the line which was quite nice.
Dunno what time I did. It was under an hour for sure. Probably 50-55 minutes. It was reassuring to know that I put about 15 minutes into some marathon hopefulls. Especially as I've entered a half marathon and will be starting it this day next month. :o
I'd better get some running miles in...

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #252 on: 07 February, 2010, 11:01:51 pm »
The thinking is that higher cadence (within limits!) is better - discouraging heel-striking and reducing impact forces.  Too long strides is believed to encourage shin splints ( a bad thing)

round about 180 bpm - try counting every right footfall for a minute, and if it's round about 90 then you are up there with the Kenyans  ;D

good luck with your half marathin

"What a long, strange trip it's been", Truckin'

andygates

  • Peroxide Viking
Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #253 on: 07 February, 2010, 11:15:39 pm »
Up to a whole mile with the vff's. :thumbsup:
It takes blood and guts to be this cool but I'm still just a cliché.
OpenStreetMap UK & IRL Streetmap & Topo: ravenfamily.org/andyg/maps updates weekly.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #254 on: 07 February, 2010, 11:46:32 pm »
The thinking is that higher cadence (within limits!) is better - discouraging heel-striking and reducing impact forces.  Too long strides is believed to encourage shin splints ( a bad thing)

round about 180 bpm - try counting every right footfall for a minute, and if it's round about 90 then you are up there with the Kenyans  ;D




180 bpm sounds about right. Maybe even 200. I jog a mile and a half twice (an hour inbetween), twice a week. The last two weeks I was wearing steel toe capped boots and 3kg weights on each ankle. When I went back to my trainers today I had super light feet which I could throw all over the place. My legs not used to running is still my weakest link, but my lungs certainly got a bit of a workout, especially the last bit when I kept increasing the pace as I got nearer the finish and ran myself dizzy. Not eating breakfast probably never helped either.
I'll go back to just the trainers now to try increase my stride as well as my regular running distance and get used to my legs moving fast and taking the pounding. Then I'll go back to the weights again and try and do the same longer distance runs before the half marathon where I'll go back to my trainers and have the super light feet again. The fast cadence and short strides did feel more comfortable.


Quote
good luck with your half marathin

Cheers. I know I can do the distance. But it's just a matter of how much it will hurt. I'll aim for under 2 hours, but after today, I know I have some work to do yet.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #255 on: 11 February, 2010, 10:17:43 pm »
With the vff's I'm completely on the ball of the foot, slightly outside - everything comes from there, with the calf working like a spring and heel just dabbing the ground before the drive.  It feels faster over the ground (longer effective leg?) but I haven't timed it.
 

I tried landing on the ball of the foot instead of the heel tonight. I was thinking about it the other day and it seemed to make a lot of sense, especially for other reasons that I started running.
It felt more natural and I like it more. I've still got to get used to it.
I feel much slower, but that's no surprise to me. I'm just concentrating on landing on the ball of the foot for now until it becomes my default way of running. I think my technique is pretty poor, but it was my first go and I'm wearing big boots.
It also struck me as a bit camp, but that could be because my calves aren't up to big strides yet.


Quote
Nothing gives out, so much as I have an absurd calf pump and have to stop - it's purely conditioning, not biomechanics.


Yes, it feels like I'm starting from scratch again, but I'll perservere with it. It feels right, even though I'm not doing a very good job of it. I doubt I'll manage a sub 2 hour half marathon unless I pick it up quicker than I think I will, but if I can do the distance with this method then I'll be happy.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #256 on: 11 February, 2010, 11:01:17 pm »
My guess is that with a cadence ~180+ you don't need to worry too much about where you land - you'll naturally be landing on your forefoot, beautifully positioned for a powerful transition to a solid push-off (I was going to say thrust, but you know what people are like  O:-))
"What a long, strange trip it's been", Truckin'

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #257 on: 12 February, 2010, 12:14:49 am »
My guess is that with a cadence ~180+ you don't need to worry too much about where you land - you'll naturally be landing on your forefoot, beautifully positioned for a powerful transition to a solid push-off (I was going to say thrust, but you know what people are like  O:-))

My cadence was probably more like 120 tonight. Very short strides too. I had my steel toecapped boots on and I was concentrating on planting my forefoot.
I'm pretty sure that I was landing on my heel on the 10k. I landed on the heel a few times tonight. I know I could have done a faster cadence and ran faster if I just ran like I did on the 10k, but I'm trying to change my running style and don't want to switch my brain off and fall back to landing on the heel.
I'll up my cadence and hopefully my stride once I suss out how to land and am able to land on the forefoot without needing to think about it. Then I'll need my calves to get used to it too. I just need to practice.

andygates

  • Peroxide Viking
Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #258 on: 13 February, 2010, 09:03:55 pm »
...and vff's are up to 2.5km.  Will consolidate this for a couple of runs as it was achey in shins and arches at the end.  Quick though, for me.
It takes blood and guts to be this cool but I'm still just a cliché.
OpenStreetMap UK & IRL Streetmap & Topo: ravenfamily.org/andyg/maps updates weekly.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #259 on: 14 February, 2010, 08:28:16 pm »
Started running in vff's.  Up to a whole kilometer now.  Calves like wood.  Progress to be anticipated..!

Hi Andy, what is the purpose? Is that to force you to run within and care for your body?

I may be showing my running age but the main ennemy for me is weight. If/when I was lighter I was healthier and able to run with proper racing shoes. Now I prefer running off road whenever I can or with fairly cushioned shoes and with pre and post stretching (I am over 80 kg at present, rather heavy for a runner; I always was but I was in the low 70 kg when I was competing).

As for landing on the ball I have seen a few light runners do it at my running club back in the days, though it is rare and more found among trackies. Is there evidence that it is better?
Frenchie - Train à Grande Vitesse

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #260 on: 14 February, 2010, 10:44:19 pm »
Two aspects to "is there evidence it is better" ...

1) for all the "developments in running technology" trumpeted by the shoe companies, the indication is that running related injuires are pretty much as they were. in other words those expensive shoes are not making you any less prone to injury.

2) anecdotally and theoretically there is increasing inclination to the view that "more natural is better". partly fashion/trend stuff, but respected coaches like Joe Friel are suggesting that forefoot strike is both more efficient and less injurious.

The numbers are not in, jury not voted, but vff looks like a very interesting option.

FWIW I'm also playing with vff - 3 runs around 40 mins each so far, I think it's brilliant   ;D

"What a long, strange trip it's been", Truckin'

andygates

  • Peroxide Viking
Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #261 on: 14 February, 2010, 11:13:14 pm »
While partly it's because I think the biomechanics are better (helped by testimonials from other runners) a lot of it is just that I'm a barefoot ape, I like feeling the ground with my toes and running barefoot makes me smile.

I mean really smile, the way a fresh baby carrot makes me smile, it's just happy feet.  Can't explain it any other way.

The freak flag is also pretty high in monkey shoes ;)

I'm a very heavy runner (98kg now, never under 90) and a martyr to both shin splints and now some ITB fun.  I noticed that with running shoes my foot landing is ugly, which is hard to explain, but the shoe is pretty intrusive.

You have to add a sprinkle of that Pirelli advert and a dash of extropian nonsense too - rather like a fixie, it's enhancement of human potential, but minimal enhancement.

Or something.

Ook! 8)
It takes blood and guts to be this cool but I'm still just a cliché.
OpenStreetMap UK & IRL Streetmap & Topo: ravenfamily.org/andyg/maps updates weekly.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #262 on: 14 February, 2010, 11:15:23 pm »
Two aspects to "is there evidence it is better" ...

1) for all the "developments in running technology" trumpeted by the shoe companies, the indication is that running related injuires are pretty much as they were. in other words those expensive shoes are not making you any less prone to injury.

2) anecdotally and theoretically there is increasing inclination to the view that "more natural is better". partly fashion/trend stuff, but respected coaches like Joe Friel are suggesting that forefoot strike is both more efficient and less injurious.

The numbers are not in, jury not voted, but vff looks like a very interesting option.

FWIW I'm also playing with vff - 3 runs around 40 mins each so far, I think it's brilliant   ;D



I think that it also uses the inner core muscles more effectively, gives you better balance and more efficiency. I'm trying to change to landing on the ball of the foot to improve my inner core strength, improve my posture and translate it into cycling. I tried a different pedaling technique to ankling based on this today and I think I'm doing the right thing.
No evidence though, just me going by what I feel.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #263 on: 15 February, 2010, 09:29:39 am »
In my mind/imagination, right now, ball strike seems quite an impact and not "looking" very free flowing; unlike a medium to long stride with an efficient runner for example, and something, I must admit, I enjoy doing.

I get the message on shoe technology; though to be fair club and competitive runners tend to run with rather light shoes and would not benefit from such improvement. There are now many more runners on the other hand; many more occasional and heavier runners too. Maybe the technology cannot compensate for an un-healthy lifestyle?

I am not convinced this isn't another new commercially-interesting discovery is where I am getting at.
Frenchie - Train à Grande Vitesse

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #264 on: 15 February, 2010, 10:44:52 am »
I'm going to crawl out of the woodwork here and say that I agree with the suspicions that Frenchie seems to have. 

I've only been running for a year or so and am no expert  but I have reached the stage where I can run reasonably comfortably, smoothly and efficiently in the 'normal' way which I see as landing on heels and immediately rolling onto forefoot before the impact gets a chance to jar my bones.  Landing on the ball of my foot as pose and modern barefoot techniques require would mean taking the impact with my Achilles tendon and doesn't ring true to me.  It's the difference between catching a heavy weight (your body) with an already tensed muscle and lifting it from the ground tensing your muscle as you lift, I know which I find easiest.

I'm sure there are runners who have impact problems with 'normal' running and by building up their Achilles tendon and using it as 'suspension' find they can run better.  There are also no doubt plenty of runners out there using this sort of technique who can run further and faster than me, I think that's just because they are better runners than me though.  I really doubt it's actually a 'better' way of running for most of us and there are many tales of Achilles injury in runners trying to adapt to it.  Time may prove me wrong but I suspect it's a trend and will never be more than a fringe method of running.

95% of the runners at the MK Half will be running 'normally' and while it might be a great to finish well using a non-conformist technique it could be a right downer to find yourself limping/walking the last few miles and kicking yourself for not taking the conservative approach.  I've run 7 halfs and buggered up 2 of them by starting too fast and hurting myself, those last 30 mins of crawling along watching everyone go past towards the end seem to go on forever  :(

That's my 2d worth but either way good luck and run well  :thumbsup:

Nik
The lights were red, his brain was small - he hardly felt a thing at all.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #265 on: 15 February, 2010, 10:58:05 am »
... the 'normal' way which I see as landing on heels and immediately rolling onto forefoot before the impact gets a chance to jar my bones.  Landing on the ball of my foot as pose and modern barefoot techniques require would mean taking the impact with my Achilles tendon and doesn't ring true to me.
The POSE technique involves taking some weight on the heel too*; so just like your description, the load does spread over the entire foot.
The high cadence is also important - you are reducing peak force by using more impacts-per-minute. This is very hard to do with a heel strike. I can genuinely feel the difference in impact load when I switch styles.

Quote

I'm sure there are runners who have impact problems with 'normal' running and by building up their Achilles tendon and using it as 'suspension' find they can run better. 
Indeed. I only tried this nonsense because of an ankle problem** which was clearly exacerbated by the heel-strike loads. I had run for years before this using the "normal" way without problems.

So although I am persuaded by the theory, there are a billion variables, and it's still under evaluation for me.

*See also andy's description of his gait.
**I broke the ankle (and other things) in a car crash. The joint angles are now subtley different which may be the underlying cause.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

andygates

  • Peroxide Viking
Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #266 on: 15 February, 2010, 11:01:12 am »
Well, maybe, but I've been trying for nearly five years and I'm still a mighty bifter who thuds around.  That might well be because running is just one thing I do, rather than my be-all-and-end-all.  

I've never been as free-flowing as I am in the vff's, so I still think evolution might have a trick or two over the shoe guys.

Quote
There are now many more runners on the other hand; many more occasional and heavier runners too. Maybe the technology cannot compensate for an un-healthy lifestyle?

Careful with the conflation.  I'd be heavy at zero bodyfat.  Not *as* heavy, but still heavy.  If the technology cannot adequately serve its client market, the technology is wrong.

Edit to add: It's taken me six weeks to get able to cover distance in the vffs; I'll report back on how effective they are as actual Sunday-morning-5k daily-grind runners once I've actually done some of that!   ;D
It takes blood and guts to be this cool but I'm still just a cliché.
OpenStreetMap UK & IRL Streetmap & Topo: ravenfamily.org/andyg/maps updates weekly.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #267 on: 15 February, 2010, 01:24:38 pm »
... the 'normal' way which I see as landing on heels and immediately rolling onto forefoot before the impact gets a chance to jar my bones.  Landing on the ball of my foot as pose and modern barefoot techniques require would mean taking the impact with my Achilles tendon and doesn't ring true to me.
The POSE technique involves taking some weight on the heel too*; so just like your description, the load does spread over the entire foot.
The high cadence is also important - you are reducing peak force by using more impacts-per-minute. This is very hard to do with a heel strike. I can genuinely feel the difference in impact load when I switch styles.


That I get (lower impact through high cadence) though I am still unsure about impact on the ankle articulation/tendon and even knee; as part of a training or recovery program. I am wondering how fast that can get one though? I am trying to picture track runners too who tend to land more flat fotted than mots roadies.
Frenchie - Train à Grande Vitesse

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #268 on: 15 February, 2010, 01:28:09 pm »

The POSE technique involves taking some weight on the heel too*; so just like your description, the load does spread over the entire foot.
The high cadence is also important - you are reducing peak force by using more impacts-per-minute. This is very hard to do with a heel strike. I can genuinely feel the difference in impact load when I switch styles.

I expect what I read about pose was only one form of it (after all don't swimmers and the like also use a form of pose?) but I understood that the heel should never touch the ground.

.... a lot of it is just that I'm a barefoot ape, I like feeling the ground with my toes and running barefoot makes me smile.

This is what does appeal about the whole barefoot/natural running thing.  Sometimes it's more about how you do something than the result.  As you say like enjoying riding fixed even if you do end up a bit slower and hurt a bit more (as I do).


Nik
The lights were red, his brain was small - he hardly felt a thing at all.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #269 on: 15 February, 2010, 01:29:53 pm »
Quote
There are now many more runners on the other hand; many more occasional and heavier runners too. Maybe the technology cannot compensate for an un-healthy lifestyle?

Careful with the conflation.  I'd be heavy at zero bodyfat.  Not *as* heavy, but still heavy.  If the technology cannot adequately serve its client market, the technology is wrong.


The point made is that with many more runners in the market, their difficulties with running may have nothing to do with the kit but but more with other parameters; which the shoe is not going to address per se. A more gentle form of exercise combined with an improved diet in a first instance, aimed at strengthening the body and improving the technique, would aid. Going into crazy running mode for the London marathon or the local 5K at short notice, even with the best of shoes, is not. This is a general comment; not one aimed to you.
Frenchie - Train à Grande Vitesse

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #270 on: 15 February, 2010, 01:36:43 pm »

The POSE technique involves taking some weight on the heel too*; so just like your description, the load does spread over the entire foot.
The high cadence is also important - you are reducing peak force by using more impacts-per-minute. This is very hard to do with a heel strike. I can genuinely feel the difference in impact load when I switch styles.

I expect what I read about pose was only one form of it (after all don't swimmers and the like also use a form of pose?) but I understood that the heel should never touch the ground.

{swimming? - No idea mate!}

Well ... there do seem to be a few interpretations!

The best description I found, was to start off running on the spot,
then lean forward and just allow yourself to run with the same motion.

If you try running on the spot right now, you'll probably find your heel at least grazes the ground. (Although you can deliberately stop it if you try). Ball lands first, but then your weight pushes the rest of the foot down.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #271 on: 15 February, 2010, 01:58:55 pm »

The POSE technique involves taking some weight on the heel too*; so just like your description, the load does spread over the entire foot.
The high cadence is also important - you are reducing peak force by using more impacts-per-minute. This is very hard to do with a heel strike. I can genuinely feel the difference in impact load when I switch styles.

I expect what I read about pose was only one form of it (after all don't swimmers and the like also use a form of pose?) but I understood that the heel should never touch the ground.

{swimming? - No idea mate!}

(quick Google) Pose swimming, cycling, speed skating, walking, throwing, skiing - all courtesy of Dr Romanov who I understand invented the whole idea in Russia.

If you try running on the spot right now ....

There will be a lot of funny looks  :o

Nik
The lights were red, his brain was small - he hardly felt a thing at all.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #272 on: 18 February, 2010, 10:57:03 pm »
In my mind/imagination, right now, ball strike seems quite an impact and not "looking" very free flowing; unlike a medium to long stride with an efficient runner for example, and something, I must admit, I enjoy doing.

I get the message on shoe technology; though to be fair club and competitive runners tend to run with rather light shoes and would not benefit from such improvement. There are now many more runners on the other hand; many more occasional and heavier runners too. Maybe the technology cannot compensate for an un-healthy lifestyle?

I am not convinced this isn't another new commercially-interesting discovery is where I am getting at.

The impact thing is interesting - if you look at how the impact is dissipated in heel-strike vs forefoot strike it seems obvious to me that forefoot strike is preferable ...

With forefoot strike you have a beautifully architected arch structure which absorbs and stores shock and recycles as elastic energy, comparable to doing squats where the stored energy on the down helps the rise.

With heel strike, you've got a fat pad on the heel.  That's it.

Try an experiment - go three step up some stairs and jump off landing on your forefoot  and springing forward.  Now do the same again landing on your heel.  Which rattles your teeth more?  Which gives you the best forward momentum?

"What a long, strange trip it's been", Truckin'

andygates

  • Peroxide Viking
Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #273 on: 18 February, 2010, 11:29:17 pm »
Pose swimming?  Sounds like a spin on "press your buoy", which is the standard advice for novice front-crawl swimmers.  By concentrating on pushing you floaty chest down and then swimming downhill, your body assumes the correct high-hips position and your legs don't drag. 

But it's really just a physical mnemonic...
It takes blood and guts to be this cool but I'm still just a cliché.
OpenStreetMap UK & IRL Streetmap & Topo: ravenfamily.org/andyg/maps updates weekly.

Re: Cross Training: Running
« Reply #274 on: 19 February, 2010, 10:02:50 am »
I've been buzzing all week because on Monday I ran up my first Monro (Scottish hills over 3000ft/914metres) for more than 15 years!

I was happily ticking them off, 3-7 hour days running in the hills, when my body pretty much fell apart, feet, ankles, back all knackered, maybe arthritis maybe not. Long rehab, most recently with achilles problems, so it was unbelievably fantastic to be out.

Not a biggie, Meall Cluaich, above Dalwhinnie, out and back 3km on Hydro Board track then steady up hill. Snow for top 300m vertical, new powder on old granular snow, quite gentle angles so no danger of avalanche or sliding over the edge! Unfortuantley clag at the top stopped any views

Brilliant!
"What a long, strange trip it's been", Truckin'