1

Traditional Views on Form

It’s personal. At least that’s how running form has traditionally been viewed. Aiming for perfection of movement, swimmers practice their strokes, budding tennis players spend hours developing proper footwork and swing mechanics, and golfers constantly strive to optimize form, but runners usually, well, just run. It is commonly believed that running is such a basic activity that no instruction manual is required. But runners tend to run the way they breathe—with little thought about, planning for, or practice of coordinating gait. According to popular belief, each runner optimizes his form naturally as he trains, and the gait pattern that evolves is a function of the runner’s unique anatomical and neuromuscular characteristics. Copying another runner’s form or—dare we say it?—actually learning how to run from a coach or textbook is viewed as a dangerous enterprise, since it might violate one’s own functionality and even produce physical injury.

Such popular and widespread views are illogical and run counter to experience. After all, running consists of repeated movements, motions that are replicated by all runners (1). When running speed increases, nearly all runners flex their legs more at the knee during the swing and sweep phase of gait (when a leg loses contact with the ground and swings forward and then backward prior to the next impact with terra firma) (figure 1.1a). Most runners decrease knee flexion during swing while running downhill and increase knee flexion when surging uphill. During swing, all runners activate their hamstrings to control forward movement of the legs. And as runners move along, each foot traces a kidney-shaped line of movement through the air and over the ground. This is called the “motion curve,” or the path of the foot and leg during a stride (figure 1.1b).

The basic mechanics and neuromuscular patterns of running are not so unique after all, and it is highly questionable whether each runner develops her own optimal gait pattern. Except for walking, no other human activity is viewed as being optimally developed without instruction and learning, like in running. Skeptics may ask exactly what might be “optimized” when a runner develops his own style of running. It certainly can’t be the prevention of damage to a runner’s body, since up to 90 percent of runners are injured in an average year (2). Nor can it be economy of movement, since research reveals that certain types of training alter running form and consequently upgrade economy.

Figure 1.1   (a) As running speed increases, runners flex their legs more during the swing and sweep phases of gait. (b) A runner’s foot follows a kidney bean-shaped line of movement through the air and over the ground.

Running on Square Wheels

An unfortunate consequence of this view—that every runner naturally optimizes his unique form—is that the majority of runners don’t spend enough time trying to improve their form. After all, if form is already optimal, why should one attempt to change it? Serious runners tend to spend a lot of time devising challenging workouts in order to improve key performance variables such as O2max, lactate threshold speed, fatigue resistance, and maximal running speed. However, they tend to ignore their own gait patterns and fail to develop strategies for upgrading gait quality. The frequent result is that such runners develop huge “machines”—voluminous hearts that can send large quantities of oxygen-rich blood to the leg muscles and responsive muscles with very high oxidative capacities. But these machines seldom produce the best possible performances, because they are hooked up to legs that fail to optimally interact with the ground (in other words, legs that operate with sub-optimal form). It is a bit like placing a magnificent Rolls-Royce engine in an automobile and then outfitting the vehicle with square, stone wheels.

Good-Looking Runners

Another traditional view suggests that how a runner looks while running is critical to form. Typically, tense, agonized expressions (a la Emil Zápotek, figure 1.2a) are discouraged, as are rolling movements of the head (a la Jim Ryan, figure 1.2b).

Figure 1.2   Legendary athletes (a) Emil Zátopek and (b) Jim Ryun ran with seemingly non-optimal movements in their upper bodies, but did they really have bad form?

Twists and turns of the upper body and excessive arm movements are generally frowned upon, as though upper body activity is the key determinant of proper form. According to popular wisdom, running should be a smooth and rhythmic activity, and good form should be free of bumps and jerks.

But shouldn’t a definition of proper form go beyond smooth activity and control of the torso? Shouldn’t it also include precise mention of how the feet, ankles, and legs are functioning, with actual scientific numbers placed on joint and leg angles, limb positions and movements, and foot angles at initial contact with the ground (instead of the usual reliance on vague pronouncements about high knees, soft knees, and springy ankles)? After all, forward propulsion is provided by the legs—not the upper body—and proper form should produce better, faster, more economical, and more injury-free movement. It is important to define exactly what the lower limbs should be doing (with real numbers, not just words), and this book will do just that.

Form and Running Economy

Traditionally, research into form has focused on economy of movement. Studies using animals reveal that they tend to move in ways that produce the smallest energy cost. At first glance, economy and form research using human runners also seems to support the “personal” view of running form (the notion that each individual develops the form that is right for him) because some studies have indeed suggested that runners naturally learn to optimize their stride length, a key component of running form. In one investigation, runners were found, on average, to naturally stride just one inch, or 2.5 centimeters, away from the stride length that produced the most economical running (3).

To understand such research, it is important to note that running economy is defined as the oxygen “cost” of running. If two runners are moving along at the same speed, the one who is using less oxygen (expressed per pound or kilogram of body weight per minute) is said to be more economical. Good economy is a predictor of performance and indicates that a runner can operate at a lower percentage of her aerobic maximum—and with lower perceived effort—at any velocity, compared with a runner who has poorer economy and similar aerobic capacity. Since the actions of the legs consume oxygen during running, it is logical to assume that enhanced economy is an essential goal of improving form. In other words, form transformations should be deliberately structured to optimize the actions of the legs and thus improve economy.

In another piece of research, running economy actually deteriorated whenever runners increased or decreased their stride lengths by relatively small amounts (4). So, is it possible that runners really do optimize stride length as a natural outcome of their training, without needing coaching around stride length? And if they optimize stride length, isn’t it likely they also optimize other aspects of gait? Doesn’t this mean that a runner should avoid tinkering with his own form, since what comes naturally is probably right for the body?

Simply put, no. These studies on stride length and economy have deep methodological flaws. When a runner changes her form, running economy associated with the new form can progress and improve gradually, over a period of several weeks. A snapshot taken immediately after form has changed will fail to reveal the ultimate impact of that change in form on the runner’s economy. Therefore, research actually does not support the idea that runners optimize stride length, since the time periods involved in the investigations are too short. As a further rebuttal to the philosophy of “each-to-his-own” running, studies have shown that runners who make significant form changes can develop marked improvements in running economy (5).

Quantifying the Right Way to Run

Bear in mind that about 90 to 95 percent of runners are heel-strikers (6, 7), hitting the ground heel first as they run. As this book will demonstrate, heel-striking is not an optimal way to run, for a variety of different reasons, including the effects of such ground landings on performance and the risk of injury. There is a right way to run—a running blueprint applicable to almost all runners—and there is actually no reason to believe that optimization has occurred in each individual. Some runners do have great form, as we will see, while others fall far off the mark.

Numbers, Please

A key problem with traditional views on running form is that there has been nearly a complete lack of quantification of form. Traditionally, form recommendations have been made with the use of general statements, without identifying precisely how the body should be adjusted. For example, a runner may be told to maintain short, quick strides in order to have good form, without any specifications as to how short each step should actually be or how quick the cadence (number of steps per minute) should be. Nor is there usually any mention of exactly how a runner can progressively make the change from long, lethargic stepping to quicksilver cantering. Outstanding drills for developing great form have been in short supply (a shortage which will be remedied by this book).

As an example of the lack of form quantification, David E. Martin and Peter N. Coe, in their book Training Distance Runners, propose a number of elements of good form, including a head that is “well poised” and a trunk kept in a vertical position (8). According to Martin and Coe, the feet should be parallel to each other—pointing straight ahead during stance—and the arms should be held naturally, never hunched. The shoulders should be carried vertically above the hips, the elbows close to the body, and the hands loose and relaxed, with the fingers slightly bent. These statements are vague. Exactly how “poised” should the head be? And how exactly should the arms be positioned “naturally”? They also fail to quantify or even address the key components of form, which include joint angles of the feet and legs during various stages of gait. As pointed out by Walt Reynolds (9), running-specific strength training and running form guru, the following questions must be answered before form recommendations can be properly made:

When runners attempt to develop better form by focusing on vague, non-quantified recommendations concerning the head, shoulders, arms, and hands, it is like cramming for a calculus test by practicing multiplication tables.

In their book Bill Bowerman’s High Performance Training for Track and Field, coaches Bill Bowerman and Bill Freeman make traditional non-quantitative statements about form, calling for an “upright posture” while running, with the back perpendicular to the ground, a “tucked” pelvis, and little or no overall forward body lean (10). Bowerman and Freeman also recommend:

With such general recommendations, it could be difficult for a runner to determine exactly what optimal form is or understand how to create appropriate form drills and train in ways that produce great form.

Form Before Function

Hundreds of online articles provide form recommendations, often in contradictory ways and certainly without scientific backing for various claims. For example, an article published on the Runner’s World website in 2014 advises that “it doesn’t matter whether the heel or forefoot hits the ground first, as long as your foot is not in front of your knee” (11). The scientific or experiential basis for such recommendations is unknown, since research has shown that heel and forefoot-striking are associated with dramatically different impact forces as well as ankle and calf muscle workloads. It is also difficult to imagine a runner moving along while consciously keeping the feet under the knees at impact—and yet hitting the ground heel-first.

In the highly popular book Daniels’ Running Formula, coaching legend Jack Daniels devotes approximately two pages total to technique or form (12). In one section, titled “Foot Strike,” Daniels writes that he sees little general advantage associated with the use of a midfoot-strike pattern, compared with a rear-foot landing, and vice versa. He suggests that if a runner used a heel-first landing, he should try to imagine that he is rolling over his foot as his body moves forward after landing (13). It is difficult to imagine what else a runner could do after striking the ground with the heel, since rolling backwards off the heel and springing forward off the heel are not desirable options. Daniels also advises runners to imagine they are running over a field of raw eggs as they move along, with the goal being not to crack any of the eggs (14). It is very hard to imagine how a runner could optimize propulsive force and maximal running velocity with such a strategy, especially since current research indicates that running speed is a direct function of vertical ground-reaction force; the greater the vertical force, the higher the running velocity (15). High vertical forces would crack a lot of raw eggs!

Correctly Identifying Elements of Good Form

The halls of academia have also largely failed to provide solid, practical form recommendations for runners and coaches. In a classic five-week study in 1989 (16), researchers at Wake Forest University used video and verbal feedback to guide a group of 11 runners through a variety of seemingly positive form changes, which included the following:

At the end of five weeks, the Wake Forest harriers had not experienced even the slightest improvement in running economy. Five weeks should be a sufficient time for economy changes to occur, so what went wrong? It probably wasn’t a great idea to advocate heel-striking, since there is little convincing evidence that heel-striking allows a runner to pound the ground toward better economy. But the main issue with this research is that it failed to help runners improve (or even identify) the key elements of form, including leg angle at the moment of contact with the ground, foot position and angle at ground contact, and sweep and swing of the leg during the overall gait cycle. Sweep is backward “pawing” action made by the lower leg immediately before the foot makes contact with the ground. Swing is the forward movement of the leg; it begins after toe-off and ends when the leg stops moving forward relative to the body—at the moment when sweep starts to occur.

That’s not surprising. Traditionally there has been a systematic failure to identify the key elements of good form. As mentioned, form has often been viewed as an exercise in aesthetics, as though “looking good” is the primary desired outcome of form adjustments. People viewed famed runner Emil Zátopek as having terrible form because of his unusual upper body movements, but focusing on the upper body to assess form is comparable to having a physician check on your teeth to discover what is wrong with your feet. Zátopek’s legs and feet interacted with the ground in very positive ways, but this has never been mentioned in the examination of his form.

The aesthetic analysis of form ignores the fact that form should be discussed in the context of function, running economy, risk of injury, and performance. The key elements of form must be the ways in which the legs, ankles, and feet interact with the ground. It is only via these interactions that propulsive forces are created and injury-inducing impact forces are handled and controlled by a runner’s body. These interactions should be quantified and linked with optimal levels of performance, enhanced running economy, and the lowest possibilities of injury.

Runners vary quite widely in their form characteristics. A 1992 study, which examined several biomechanical variables in elite female distance runners of similar abilities, detected ample variations among the athletes (17). For example, “stance time,” or the amount of time a foot spends on the ground as an individual runs, averaged 180 milliseconds in this group, but varied from as little as 167 to as many as 193 milliseconds. As this book will demonstrate, stance time is an important element of form because it determines stride rate and thus running velocity. Stance time depends on such form characteristics as foot-strike pattern (forefoot, midfoot, or heel); shank angle (angle of the lower part of the limb—from knee to foot—when the foot makes contact with the ground); relative position of the foot to the body’s center of mass upon impact with the ground; and leg stiffness. It is often forgotten that a competitive runner should manipulate form, in an attempt to maximize the ratio of (a) propulsive force created to (b) time on the ground during stance; one is generally looking for higher propulsive forces and shorter contact times as a feature of better form. The time duration of stance and the magnitude of propulsive force are both strongly influenced by form, as will be explained in chapter 8.

Transforming Form

It is clear that certain modes of training can have a positive effect on form. In a profound study, which has become a classic but often-ignored piece of exercise research, Leena Paavolainen and her colleagues at the KIHU Research Institute for Olympic Sports and the University of Jyväskylä (both in Finland) demonstrated that explosive strength training has a major impact on key elements of form and thus distance running performance (18).

In this groundbreaking research, experienced runners altered their training programs by replacing moderate-speed efforts with explosive drills and high-speed running over a nine-week period. The explosive routines included sprints (5–10 × 20–100 meters); jumping exercises (alternative jumps, bilateral counter-movements, drop and hurdle jumps, and one-legged five-jump drills) without additional weight or with a barbell held on the shoulders; and leg-press and knee-extensor-flexor exercises with very low loads and high or maximal movement velocities. Key drills from this research will be featured in chapter 8.

After nine weeks, these runners had reduced their contact times with the ground per step by about 7 percent, without any decrease in step length. This key change in form increased another form element, cadence, by approximately 3.5 percent. Taking more steps per minute while running a 5K, without any decrease in step length, meant that the runners were simply running faster during their 5K races. In fact, they improved 5K race times by an average of 30 seconds. This large improvement was accomplished without any gain in maximal aerobic capacity (O2max) or lactate threshold speed but was associated with enhanced economy. To summarize, the research revealed that appropriate training altered form in a significant way, which in turn led to enhancements in economy and faster 5K times.

This study also showed that the experienced runners had not optimized their form (prior to the research), despite years of training. With the guidance of Paavolainen and colleagues, their form changed significantly in nine weeks; the transformation was associated with enhanced economy and faster 5K running, without an increased risk of injury. It is clear that there is a right way to run, that each runner has in fact not achieved form perfection, and that running technique can be upgraded with appropriate training. This book will provide a comprehensive guide to form-advancing training techniques.

Summary

Traditional views of form have focused on the way the body looks during running, rather than on how changes in the movement patterns of the force-producing parts of the body influence economy, performance, and risk of injury. Another long-term and pervasive belief is that each runner optimizes his own form naturally and therefore does not need to learn how to improve form. These notions have stymied an understanding of optimal running form. Fortunately, a significant body of scientific information is now available to guide runners in their form transformations. It is clear that form alterations—which have positive effects on force production, running economy, performance, and the risk of injury—are desirable. These form transformations will be outlined in this book.

References

1. M.J. Milliron and P.R. Cavanagh, “Sagittal Plane Kinematics of the Lower Extremity During Distance Running,” In Biomechanics of Distance Running, ed. P.R. Cavanagh (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1990), 65–106.

2. I.S. Davis, B.J. Bowser, and D.R. Mullineaux, “Greater Vertical Impact Loading in Female Runners With Medically Diagnosed Injuries: A Prospective Investigation,” British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015 (downloaded from http://bjsm.com on April 1, 2016).

3. P.R. Cavanagh and K.R. Williams, “The Effect of Stride Length Variation on Oxygen Uptake During Distance Running,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 14, no. 1 (1982): 30–35.

4. L.D. Heinert et al., “Effect of Stride Length Variation on Oxygen Uptake During Level and Positive Grade Treadmill Running,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 18, no. 2 (1986), 225–230.

5. O. Anderson, Running Science (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2013), 323.

6. P. Larson et al., “Foot Strike Patterns of Recreational and Sub-Elite Runners in a Long-Distance Road Race,” Journal of Sports Science 29 (2011): 1665–1673.

7. H. Hasegawa, T. Yamauchi, and W.J. Kraemer, “Foot Strike Patterns of Runners at 15-km Point During an Elite-Level Half Marathon,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 21 (2007): 888–893.

8. D.E. Martin and P.N. Coe, Training Distance Runners (Champaign, IL: Leisure Press, 1991), 15–18.

9. Walter Reynolds, interview, April 7, 2016.

10. W.J. Bowerman and W.H. Freeman, High-Performance Training for Track and Field (Champaign, IL: Leisure Press, 1991), 88–90.

11. J. Allen, “Proper Running Form,” www.runnersworld.com/the-starting-line/proper-running-form (accessed September 28, 2014).

12. J. Daniels, Daniels’ Running Formula (Third Edition) (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2014), 27–28.

13. Ibid, p. 28.

14. Ibid.

15. K.P. Clark et al., “Are Running Speeds Maximized With Simple-Spring Stance Mechanics,” Journal of Applied Physiology 117, no. 5 (1985), 604-615.

16. S.P. Messier and K.J. Cirillo, “Effects of a Verbal and Visual Feedback System on Running Technique, Perceived Exertion, and Running Economy in Female Novice Runners,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 21, no. 2 (1989): S80.

17. K.R. Williams, “Biomechanics of Distance Running,” Current Issues in Biomechanics, ed. M.D. Grabiner (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics), 3–31.

18. L. Paavolainen et al., “Explosive Strength Training Improves 5-Km Running Time by Improving Running Economy and Muscle Power,” Journal of Applied Physiology 86, no. 5 (1999): 1527–1533.