A question about running form...

[Ron_Hendrix]

Before I ask, let me preface this by saying that I am trying to learn how to run using the POSE method...BUT...I can't run BOF for very long so most of my running is done with me running H2T(heel to toe) or MFS (mid-foot strike).

I know that I need to keep my shoulders over my hip, chest up, arms relaxed, and not to over reach my stride, causing me to run more efficiently, at least in theory.

In practice though, shortening my stride is actually making me feel as if I'm expending more energy. Energy I could be using to help propel myself forward.

Am I feeling this way because I'm correcting poor body mechanics after all of these years and proprioreception is just off, or are certain ppl just not meant to run in what is deemed to be efficient?

[Aoife]

i am SO no expert…

but, firstly, I'd ask what you think is "efficient"

Say that you're right, and you haven't screwed proprioception. Say you're right and reaching more and having a bigger stride, manages to get you farther or something. How long can you manage that? How much longer (or not longer) could you manage on a shorter stride that has less reaching and …pulling (for lack of a better way to describe it) you along? Which would let you over time cover more ground less exhausted and thereby more efficient?

I donno, I'm just sorta wondering on the idea of what one deems efficient or how one is considering efficiency. Driving faster uses more gas but saves more time. Maybe you get a similar effect when dealing with running. Certainly, when you think about it, for most people, walking can be done ad nauseam therefore …

not to say that my thinking isn't completely wrong… and I'd venture that part of you feeling it's less efficient is because even if you haven't screwed proprioception you are doing something new and there's weirdness there…

plus, I have a q-angle people are amazed at so I'm SO not a runner…

Just thinking

[Ron_Hendrix]

Hmm...if we're talking efficiency as defined per body mechanics, well...I'm not educated enough to really answer that.

My own personal definition of efficiency would be something along the lines that I'd like to be able to train at a distance no greater than a 5k, and be able to run a distance no greater than a 10k with the splits from my 5k. Sounds wonky, but that's supposedly the benifit of running smarter and not harder. Less distance training and faster times, more distance overall, etc.

I'm willing to bet that some of my feelings are spawned from having to teach myself new body mechanics. Guess Im just not a fan of learning curves.

[misstenacity]

Get "Brain Training for Runners" by Matt Fitzgerald. Does great work with proprioception and changing your form, but gradually and with lots of mental cues.

[wil58]

I suggest that you watch marathons on TV and observe the form of those runners. You'll eventually build an appreciation for the aesthetic of running. This will transfer into your own thinking as you run and you'll mimic that which you found aesthetically pleasing. Try not to distract yourself with mp3's or a treadmill TV while running....visualizing your form should be the most important thing. Anyway...this is what worked for me.

Part of becoming a jogger is getting an appreciation for the qualities associated with it, which obviously includes the beauty of the gait but also the continuity and endurance. This is why I have a hard time comparing interval running to long distance jogging....there is a certain loss in the aesthetic.

[Ron_Hendrix]

Originally Posted by misstenacity

Get "Brain Training for Runners" by Matt Fitzgerald. Does great work with proprioception and changing your form, but gradually and with lots of mental cues.

I'm almost positive you've brought this up before...I have too many dang books to read, I need to finish some of them already!