Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Trail running shoes

I'd say that three steps a second is a little more than jogging, or even running.

You don't want to be artificially over-lengthening your stride. That way lies stress fractures. Run as you should walk - to your natural pace length. As for cadence, it depends whether you're after fat-burning and endurance, or speed.
Who is doing three steps a second?
 
Here's my last lot of runs with cadence noted I aim for 180 but sometimes drop if I'm having a bit of a plod or taking it easy.

runcadence.jpg
 
I just found I was heavy plodding before and was having issues - slowly upped the cadence over a number of weeks and so much happier.

Very light on my feet, hips are always over the striking area so I'm either on my toes or mid-foot, pushing away behind me rather than throwing out my leg in front, slamming the heel down, then pulling myself over the foot and then pushing behind. Up hills it makes a big difference and on trails, which is all I run now, much easier to be dynamic when you can skip over stuff - if you get a dodgy footfall or slip, then the next footfall comes along quickly so you can get back in control and everything is being pushed behind you.

Anyway, it works for me - everyone is different.
 
I just found I was heavy plodding before and was having issues - slowly upped the cadence over a number of weeks and so much happier.

Very light on my feet, hips are always over the striking area so I'm either on my toes or mid-foot, pushing away behind me rather than throwing out my leg in front, slamming the heel down, then pulling myself over the foot and then pushing behind. Up hills it makes a big difference and on trails, which is all I run now, much easier to be dynamic when you can skip over stuff - if you get a dodgy footfall or slip, then the next footfall comes along quickly so you can get back in control and everything is being pushed behind you.

Anyway, it works for me - everyone is different.
Thanks for the clarification. I just got a bit confused when I use the theory that "Stride Length x Stride Rate = Horizontal Speed" across the ground. So more strides = shorter strides, so in theory slower across the ground.

Or have I misinterpreted that?

Thanks
 
Thanks for the clarification. I just got a bit confused when I use the theory that "Stride Length x Stride Rate = Horizontal Speed" across the ground. So more strides = shorter strides, so in theory slower across the ground.

Or have I misinterpreted that?

Thanks
Take speed out of the equation - I can jog on the spot or sprint doing 180 spm.

Think of it more like a CVT gearbox - I'm always aiming for a fixed SPM (if it was an engine, RPM), on the flat I have a medium stride length, down hill I can stretch it out a bit, up hill it gets shortened, but I'm still sticking at around 180 SPM, that way the energy used stays the same regardless of gradient or pace - sort of.

Very easy to demonstrate in person - sorry for my crap explanation.
 
Take speed out of the equation - I can jog on the spot or sprint doing 180 spm.

Think of it more like a CVT gearbox - I'm always aiming for a fixed SPM (if it was an engine, RPM), on the flat I have a medium stride length, down hill I can stretch it out a bit, up hill it gets shortened, but I'm still sticking at around 180 SPM, that way the energy used stays the same regardless of gradient or pace - sort of.

Very easy to demonstrate in person - sorry for my crap explanation.
Makes sense to me!
 
Thanks for the clarification. I just got a bit confused when I use the theory that "Stride Length x Stride Rate = Horizontal Speed" across the ground. So more strides = shorter strides, so in theory slower across the ground.

Or have I misinterpreted that?

Thanks
Not necessarily. If your stride is too long, you are more likely to heel strike in front of you, which acts as a braking force each time, and is quite impacting up the leg. With shorter faster strides, your foot will land more under the hips, your foot strike will be closer to mid foot, and in theory allow you to turn more of that energy into propelling force. It’s more complicated than that, and I’m no running coach, so get proper advice.
If you’re really concerned, go and get a running gait analysis (not the treadmill in a running shop), the videos they take are quite enlightening.
 
Not necessarily. If your stride is too long, you are more likely to heel strike in front of you, which acts as a braking force each time, and is quite impacting up the leg. With shorter faster strides, your foot will land more under the hips, your foot strike will be closer to mid foot, and in theory allow you to turn more of that energy into propelling force. It’s more complicated than that, and I’m no running coach, so get proper advice.
If you’re really concerned, go and get a running gait analysis (not the treadmill in a running shop), the videos they take are quite enlightening.
According to the information on the Saucony website when it comes down to foot planting, 95% of people run with a 'heel strike' action. The other 5% are a mix of flat footed, or ball of the foot action.

I try to mix mine up tovary the impact and according to the terrain. It is almost impossible to run uphill using a heel strike action.
 
Take speed out of the equation - I can jog on the spot or sprint doing 180 spm.

Think of it more like a CVT gearbox - I'm always aiming for a fixed SPM (if it was an engine, RPM), on the flat I have a medium stride length, down hill I can stretch it out a bit, up hill it gets shortened, but I'm still sticking at around 180 SPM, that way the energy used stays the same regardless of gradient or pace - sort of.

Very easy to demonstrate in person - sorry for my crap explanation.
Agreed, back in the day when I was knocking out 10k's in 30 to 32 minutes, my philosophy was run at the speed the terrain allows you to, maintaining the same level of energy output throughout.
Best Marathon time was 2 hours 25 minutes, constant pace judgement over the whole route on the flat.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
According to the information on the Saucony website when it comes down to foot planting, 95% of people run with a 'heel strike' action. The other 5% are a mix of flat footed, or ball of the foot action.

I try to mix mine up tovary the impact and according to the terrain. It is almost impossible to run uphill using a heel strike action.
In my experience, just accepting one’s natural gait is best. I pronate, so use motion-control shoes, but that’s a product of age. Many of us pronate more as we get older.

On the other hand, a mate caused himself serious issues when he tried barefoot running shoes - and he’s a lot younger than me.

The ex-wife was in nuclear medicine and used to see a fair few recruits with hairline fracture issues (pelvis) after they’d been told told to ‘stride out’ while marching (“Speed up, speed up - lengthen your stride!”). Principally women, as they tend to be shorter. It’s an outdated practice.

My own army career ended because of hip issues, so I’m rather keen on this whole topic. Hence my feeling that if it feels natural it’s probably right.
 
Which app / program are you using for that?
Every modern fitness watch now comes with an App to transfer or sync with on your phone or tablet. I was torn between going for the Garmin VivoActive 3 or the Polar Ignite. Because I've always used Polar HRM'S in the past I chose the Polar Ignite, cost £174.00.

So far I'm quite impressed, but I only use it for running, not for monitoring sleep patterns, daily activity levels and all that bollox.

Here is a screenshot of some results of a long Sunday run in a very hilly area.
Screenshot_20210112-103410_Polar Flow.jpg
Screenshot_20210112-103434_Polar Flow.jpg
 
I assume the SPM reading you have there is for two steps not one.

Otherwise something is rather odd.
 
Every modern fitness watch now comes with an App to transfer or sync with on your phone or tablet. I was torn between going for the Garmin VivoActive 3 or the Polar Ignite. Because I've always used Polar HRM'S in the past I chose the Polar Ignite, cost £174.00.

So far I'm quite impressed, but I only use it for running, not for monitoring sleep patterns, daily activity levels and all that bollox.

Here is a screenshot of some results of a long Sunday run in a very hilly area.View attachment 538577View attachment 538578
Yeah, I have one for my Huawei fitness tracker / gps watch but it's a bit basic.
 

Latest Threads

Top