I would go another angle, I would ask the questions How much running is he doing, How many times has he been injured in the last 3 years, what were those injuries, what part of his gait could be causing those injuries.
Or anatomy. I know someone who has a hitch on one side but on that side the hip joint is at a different angle t the other (retroverted). He does lots of strength work to help his running and has a good injury record, whilst improving his running. His movement isn’t symmetrical but neither is his anatomy.
It did bug him playing football however.
I now am totally lost.
We had someone asking for comments on their form, and the response was “stop running” without any of those type of questions being asked. So how is asking those things leading anyone to better understanding of the basis for the original comment to purely stop? Ignoring the intervening debate, I’ve accepted I clearly know nothing about running form and the potential injuries and risks associated with “just running” without considering any of them. I asked for steer as to literature that might help educate me on these specific areas, yet the focus has been on a specific comment I made about why my previous perspective was what it was. In effect, that perspective is irrelevant, as I’m asking for guidance on what to read to learn why that perspective was wrong!
A lack of symmetry certainly could be an issue. What is causing his ‘hitch’? and what exactly is a hitch?
it could be - and probably is - increasing his performance…
Define efficiency…
There is tons of literature on running…academic and book, however whilst there are many (several) models for running, we do not yet have a model of running…
I was talking about Sanders run form and the question “what is wrong with his form?” when you commented “is known to have poor form”. i would ask those questions to lead me to better understand if there is anything wrong with it at all. If i ascertained there was something wrong then the correct response would be to tell him to stop running until we could work on it in the appropriate environment.
Here’s an interesting piece (IMHO) https://www.outsideonline.com/2390686/barefoot-running-biomechanics-study#close
This was a while ago and it got heated.
UKSEM dabate
1 Like
the very fact that the title says barefoot and the research says minimalist has me concerned…but i will read it, thanks…
Interesting article, the paper in question summarises that…
Our results support three conclusions: 1) running ground reaction force-time patterns across footwear conditions can be accurately predicted using our two-mass, two-impulse model, 2) impact forces, regardless of foot strike mechanics, can be accurately quantified from lower-limb motion and a fixed anatomical mass (0.08mb), and 3) runners maintain similar loading rates (ΔFvertical/Δtime) across footwear conditions by altering foot strike angle to regulate the duration of impact.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30763160/
Implications are that an accelerometer is all you need to measure running force, (counters my position in another thread).
However I don’t think it’s really talking about the elements of run mechanics we’re discussing here.
Not directly but I was thinking about forces through the lower limb and injury, which is how I got there.
1 Like
I’ve had one running injury - that was when my hip got “tennis elbow” after doing my first iron-distance event (combination of not enough cycling, poor bike fit and pig headedness)
My legs were a little tired after this years Outlaw, again, due to not enough running.
But with some exercises (@pacha pointed me in the right direction) it was a-ok again.
Now, my shoulder and neck, from a cycling crash, is another matter altogether…
…I’ve never had anyone look at my form, but I will probably start to get some feedback when I start attending my first ever adult track sessions. If it’s as bad as my swimming, I might cry 
1 Like
An observation from my Parkrun this morning, a 3 lap course with a very gentle slope up at the start of the lap. When I hit the slope for the 3rd time I was conscious that I was slower compared to lap 1 and 2. Not a huge amount it turns out, mile 3 was 6 seconds slower than 1 and 2, but I felt I had slowed.
What I find interesting when looking at the Garmin stats, my cadence barely changed, but my stride shortened and my ground contact time increased. If you had asked me what changed I would have said I slowed my cadence, but what I slowed was my rebound time, the cadence stayed the same by a corresponding shortening of the flight time.
All this assumes the Garmin data is accurate, and I’m not sure what I will do with it, beyond perhaps concentrating on keeping contact time short when getting tired.
3 Likes
Not uncommon…
it’s called duty factor…the ratio of ground contact time to stride time as a percentage…
3 Likes
Used an early accelerometer as an under grad:
Investigation into the benefits of a Natural Running Form training intervention in age group triathletes using high resolution MEMS accelerometers and video analysis technology to determine changes in running performance.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Running coaches frequently highlight that good running form is the key to improved performance and reduced risk of injury. However there is at best, divided opinion on what constitutes good running form and no definitive model for athletes to emulate. The aim of the study was therefore to determine whether running performance would improve as a result of triathletes completing a programme of drills, especially designed to improve running form, as part of a twelve week triathlon training programme. Method: Twenty age-group triathletes (15 male, 5 female) of varying ability and experience (aged 31-57 years) volunteered to complete a Cooper test on an outdoor running track to establish a pre-intervention performance value (m). Participants were randomly assigned to a triathlon training group with drills (Drills) or a triathlon training group without drills (No Drills). Participants repeated the Cooper test post-intervention. The study used a high resolution accelerometer to measure accelerative forces, video technology to record stance times and stride frequency and blood lactate testing to determine pre and post activity blood lactate levels. Results: No significant increase in performance (m) was observed however a significant reduction in stance time (7.9% vs 1.8%, p = 0.022) and a significant change in vertical force (-28 N vs 3 N, p = 0.016) were observed in the Drills group compared to the No Drills group. Discussion: The results suggest that combining a natural running form drills programme with regular training can result in a reduction in both vertical oscillation and stance time in running. Previous research determines that this may reduce the likelihood of injury allowing more consistent training to take place. Conclusion: There appears to be a vertical force reduction benefit through applying running form drills, however the transition may result in no progression in performance when compared to maintaining current running form.
3 Likes
I read a book (dangerous I know) the one about running form and facia with Shane Benzie, where he found VO to be good (the best runners had ~15cm iirc) as this would increase stride length, and many runners he worked with had a lot less. I guess, obviously, theres a cut off point but does that sound right to you?
1 Like
That would depend on where he was measuring VO
Increased stride length is highly beneficial (despite all the bs you hear), but it is linked to other aspects of good form.
Obviously, the same stride length and cadence with less VO is better.
Many athletes increase VO as performance improves but, again, you need to understand where it is measured, but performance improvement with reduced VO is achievable with improved form…
2 Likes
Interestingly (or not), I see a conceptual physio, (or that is how I describe him 
) in the fact that rather than only massage/needles/strength work, he looks at running form to try and solve the injury…
Anyway, I have been battling a hamstring injury on and off for a long long time, he believes it is because I am over-striding (heel striking etc), therefore too much load on an over stretched hamstring etc…
As well as potentially injury improvements I am partly doing it as I felt I was pretty maxed out fitness wise, massive run mileage, cadence up around over 200 for a 5k, I felt that I only had stride length increase left and this felt like a way to do it.
So, I am currently trying to tweak running form by
- moving foot landing more under body, thus reducing strain on hamstring
- engaging tendons more by landing on straighter legs to get more bounce
- various other stuff
- to get the timing right, reducing cadence
So, essentially aiming for more VO to get a bigger stride length and then theoretically bring cadence back up
Is it working? Who knows, but I think so.
I definitely have increased stride length on easy runs for same effort
I definitely ‘feel’ more bouncy
However to get more bounce my HR is increased at the moment, though this may be due to fitness
I struggle at greater than tempo pace to time everything just right
It is interesting to do and is beginning to feel more natural.
Am I any faster? not yet, but I am prepared to give it a go for a while to let my body adapt.
5 Likes
There’s a lot to unpack there…
Firstly, i don’t know the injury or the physio or the thinking, and so i can only make observations on your comments…by all means share them with your physio if you wish. These are generalised comments and not specific to your condition. secondly, i hope that the situation improves…hamstring injuries are very complex and can take time to resolve.
Whilst it is possible that you are over striding, in nearly every runner i see, this is simply not so. This is a lazy term used to described runners who land with an extended knee ahead of their centre of mass. This is always accompanied by a dorsiflexed foot resulting in heel striking. Heel striking per se is not the problem, but the impact transient of an extremely dorsiflexed foot can create a whole host of risk factors - force of impact transient, exposure of foot at footstrike, degree and rate of usually pronation, duty factor, cadence, resultant movement of the hip and knee. There are a number of components of good form that can help reduce the risks without reducing and, in some cases, increasing stride length, but running is most certainly multifactorial and extremely often, no part or drill in isolation works in isolation.
Many top runners have a ‘high cadence’. If you had a 1.7m stride length, that would put you as a sub 15 for 5k.
Correct, but increasing stride length alone risks landing with an extended knee and greater dorsiflexion.
That might get you out of jail to aid recovery, which is fine, but the foot s either landing ahead of the body or under the body. This is for the wider audience who may be reading this - which do you really want to happen?
there are three main components to stride length - hip extension which allows the body to move further ahead of the trailing leg (without risk of excessive movements), flight which we can come to shortly, and the distance ahead of centre of mass you can efficiently place your foot.
You probably already do land with a straight leg and i don’t think that is helping.
i would be interested to know - the various other stuff might help support some of the above.
After increasing stride length, increasing cadence is probably the hardest part of running. i would be loathed to recommend that you decreased it…but, and I am only guessing here, if you are not a sub 15 runner, then i don’t think this is your solution. i would guess that each stride is inefficient and i would work on developing an efficient stride.
There has to be some VO for it to be running, certainly. But extra VO does not necessarily result in a ‘bigger stride’. It results in more up and down, as you would expect.
The issue was that you were ‘over striding’. I get where this has been going, but it seems that the suggested solution is in more flight time. This certainly can be achieved with greater force, and is a necessary component of effective running, but don’t you want that flight to be more horizontal than vertical?
Any change to the firing pattern is going to take time to become efficient.
Do you mean more comfortable?
4 Likes
Nothing to add on run form specifically as eJC knows his onions. Has the physio not given you any strengthening work to do?
1 Like
I have a lot of faith in my physio, I am not a physio, exercise physiologist, trainer etc, so no doubt some of what I said is wrong, or very open to mis-interpretation.
Thank you for your comments eJC, I thought you might bite and they are inciteful, these are pretty much all things I have thought about, but to pick up a couple.
We have done a quite few video sessions, analysed where he believes I can improve my running form and therefore efficiency, overstriding was mentioned as the main one with the heel strike used as a pointer.
so yes, bringing the foot landing back slightly (but still in front), therefore is engaging more ‘stuff’ (probably what you mention above), giving me (slightly) more VO and also forward propulsion, leading to more time in flight (forward) and therefore a longer stride without the over stride. Which is why I am doing this and not what you mentioned of ending up with an extended knee etc…
Obviously, I won’t get to 1.7m, but I have had positive feedback from what I am doing to understand what I am aiming for…
You would also be surprised, my legs were collapsing slightly on landing, so they were not that straight 
I am also comfortable losing the cadence in the short term as I naturally have a very high cadence and certainly don’t fear finding it again, the tweaks are minor and slowing down makes sense as there is (relatively) more time to find the correct form.
I also like the word natural, running is always comfortable, or never, depending on how you look at it.
FWIW, he helped a few people over here including my mate who move from a 15:50->15:25 5k runner with similar tweaks. If he can help me get from 16:50-> 16:20 I will be very happy. (or injured )
Oh also no weights recommended in relation directly to this, but weights have been recommended as part of general physio advice)
1 Like
Again, without having seen you…
bringing the foot back in relation to the knee will be advantageous…aim for a vertical or close to vertical shank to achieve this…but ought to be combined with several other elements of good form to be truly effective…
a longer stride without landing with an extended knee
If you mean that your knees flex on footstrike, then i would sincerely hope so. Knee flexion is the means of absorbing much of the forces of running…
It’s inappropriate unless you accept that you are making changes that will make your running unnatural. Running is mostly a subconscious skill developed over time. Like all skills, the movements of which need bringing into the consciousness to adapt.
You must be close to 1.5 now…albeit with an extended knee. Forward lean, high knee drive, vertical shank, high leg recovery…you will be well on your way…