I ran an easy 4 miles tonight in town. It was about 78 with a 17 mph wind out of the West and 59% humidity. I was reading in Runner's World that most elite runners average in the neighborhood of 180 strides per minute. If I'm out slogging I generally can make about 167 or so and I decided to periodically check my stride rate today. I checked it three or four times and seemed to get between 172 and 178 but couldn't hit that sweet 180. I think the trick is to barely lift your feet off the ground and take shorter strides, duh. I wonder if I looked like a huge dork? I bet if I'd been running earlier the high school guys would have let me know as they were leaving track practice.
I ran my 4 miles in 32:48 with mile splits of 8:11, 8:15, 8:12 and 8:10. I spent 32:24 in zone and had an averge HR of 158. Tomorrow is a tempo run. I'm going to warm up a mile or two and then run two miles at about 6:50 pace followed by another mile or two to cool down. I think my lower back is starting to get a little out of whack from sitting at my desk so much. I'm going to have to hit the yoga and core exercises a little more consistently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's interesting- most exercise physiologists will tell you that the difference between a faster runner and a slower runner is stride length as opposed to turnover. Far be it for me to disagree with the guys with credentials, but I'm a bit skeptical.
At the level of the recreational runner, I think that turnover is just as important as stride length. If you and I have equal, 5-foot strides, but if I'm a 170 a minute guy, and if you are a 175 a minute guy, then you're putting 25 feet on me a minute. By the end of a 5K, you've put about 150 yards on me simply because you've got a faster turnover than me.
Don't get me wrong, stride length is also going to be part of the equation, and for elite-level runners, it may very well be the entire equation. However, I maintain that my turnover improved noticeably as I improved as a runner.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment