Short or long strides at burst speed?

November 15, 2007 5:34 PM

Usually after my evening 5K I like to open it up for a quarter mile or so - my tendency is to take very fast short steps, almost double the speed of my arms. Would I be better off (top speed) to go for longer strides? This is on clear, car-free asphalt.

I am also fearful of wiping out, and short steps, seemingly more natural, seem safer. Maybe this is just mental.

posted by four panels to Sports, Hobbies, & Recreation (10 answers total)

Yes, running with longer strides will almost certainly result in greater speed. I've heard a friend's high school coach describe it as 'running like a ballerina' - stretch out those legs and eat up the distance.
posted by chrisamiller at 5:41 PM on November 15, 2007

For training purposes, I think smaller strides are better. At least that's what my cross country coaches used to tell me.

More info.
posted by roomwithaview at 5:49 PM on November 15, 2007

Overstriding, especially on asphalt, might leave you more vulnerable to shin-splint tendencies. You don't want years-long problems with shin splints. [I almost added "YMMV," but I guess it does anyway.]
posted by oldtimey at 6:03 PM on November 15, 2007

Keep your cadence constant and vary your speed with stride length, until that sprint at the end where all bets are off.
posted by caddis at 6:04 PM on November 15, 2007

A lot of runners recommend increasing the number of strides-- I remember reading about some study (probably in Runner's World) that noted that most elite runners have some ridiculous number of strides per minute (180 maybe?). Many many shorter strides.

I have trouble implementing this myself, but you might want to give it a shot and see what happens.
posted by synecdoche at 6:35 PM on November 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

Your arms should be going the same speed - exactly - as in, when your left leg goes forward your right arm does, and vice versa, no exceptions.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 10:23 PM on November 15, 2007

I think you're over thinking it. Just push as hard as you can for a hundred yards and see what feels natural, then back it off to something you can hold for the quarter mile.
posted by 517 at 11:53 PM on November 15, 2007

What synecdoche said. I remember reading the same thing. Also, I read that the further your foot goes in front of your knee (if you think of a vertical line through your knee) the greater the chance of injury. I may be wrong on that one.
posted by m3thod4 at 12:47 AM on November 16, 2007

Really, at the end of the day, what works for you is what's right... you just really have to go with what feels most natural. My sense is that people tend to over-lengthen their strides when they're trying to concentrate on that kind of thing, but, again, that depends totally on you.

I'm trying to picture running with my legs moving at a different pace than my arms, though, and I'm not sure I can... you should definitely be doing what Jon said -- legs and arms should be in sync, since your arms can help out tremendously in terms of pushing forward.
posted by ph00dz at 4:48 AM on November 16, 2007

I'd go with short strides. FWIW coming back from a knee injury I've found shortening the strides and upping the strike rate has produced higher speed without bothering my knee.
posted by methylsalicylate at 4:54 AM on November 16, 2007