Running and Music

I can't count how often I hear someone complain about earphones that don't stay put while running, often due to motion and/or sweat.  They will then ask: "What is the best kind of earphones to use while running?"

The correct answer is none.

The vast majority of runners do at least some running on or near roads.  Anywhere moving vehicles and people mix, collisions are sure to happen.  Runners are seldom hit from the front, since the eyes can provide enough warning to avoid a collision.

Most runners get hit from the back or side, where the ears are the main warning source.  Intentionally reducing ear sensitivity while running anywhere near traffic is literally suicidal.  Many communities understand this, and have passed laws restricting the use of earphones and music players near roads.

I have personal experience with this: Just over 25 years ago a runner wearing earphones was waiting for the light to change at an intersection, then proceeded to run across the wrong side of the intersection. I was just entering the intersection on my motorcycle, having timed the light perfectly, only to suddenly find that runner in front of me.

I hit the brakes and horn and veered to miss the runner, but she kept going, never hearing the huge amount of noise my horn and tires were making. I was unable to avoid slamming into her. I had a very rough landing, was knocked unconscious, and nearly slid into oncoming traffic.

When I woke in the hospital, two police officers were standing at the foot of my bed. They asked if I knew what had happened, and I told them everything I could remember. My memory abruptly ended an instant before the impact. I didn't remember the collision itself or anything after.

They next told me she was declared dead at the scene. My blood pressure crashed and I passed out for a few moments. When I came to again, they said something that's been burned into my memory ever since: "It was not your fault. The witnesses and the evidence at the scene make it clear you did everything possible to prevent the collision. The earphones she was wearing and the volume setting of her music player combined to make her completely unaware the danger she was in. She was negligent to the point that she essentially committed suicide, and used your motorcycle to do so." They said more after that, but my mind had locked up trying to process that last sentence.

Even now, a quarter of a century later, this memory still wakes me, my heart thumping and my hands shaking.

There is no safe way to combine music and traffic with running or bicycling.  Just being a runner or bicyclist on a road is hazardous enough without making it worse by adding music.

The music a road runner hears is often their own requiem.

I'm enough of a personal libertarian to believe that we each have the right to determine when and how we leave this world.  I also believe in personal and social responsibility, and we should not inflict needless trauma on others.

Wearing earphones while running or biking anywhere near a road is equivalent to intentionally making yourself a candidate for a Darwin Award.  But as you exit the gene pool, you should try to do so with minimal pain to loved ones and strangers alike.

Wearing only one earphone or keeping the volume down is not a viable solution:  Your attention will still be on the music, instead of on the hazards present in the world around you.

The same applies to using a phone while running.

If you must run with music, please stay well away from traffic, and consider these alternatives to roads and sidewalks:

• Treadmills
• Oval tracks
• Paved paths
• Trails

Update, 16 August:  I've received a fair amount of feedback about this post.  Some said they rely on music to keep their pace regular.  In that case, consider running with a metronome such as the inexpensive Seiko DM50.  The beep of the metronome will not prevent you from hearing approaching traffic.  I seldom run without mine!

(Nearly) Barefoot Running: Why?

There is lots of online discussion about barefoot running, including running in very thin shoes such as Vibram Five Fingers (VFFs).  There are many aspects to the discussions, including topics such as benefits, risks, how to transition, how to train, and many more.

My favorite running information source is RunBlogger Pete Larson, who has had many interesting recent posts on this and related topics.  His coverage tends to be observation-driven, with occasional guest posts by true experts and highly respected authorities (most with PhDs).  And his readers post some great comments and links.

His blog, along with my own research, convinced me to incorporate VFFs into my own training regimen.

My goal has not been to give up my "running slippers" or my racing flats, since I'm too much of a committed road runner for that.  Plus, I've already had one metatarsal stress fracture and I'm not looking for another, so I like the idea of having some padding between my feet and the ground.  Finally, I've looked at the soles of barefoot runners (generally thick, cracked leather), and talked with them about their experiences (frequent discomfort, especially on gravel and hot asphalt), and I'm not inspired to emulate their dedication.

Given the above, why should I do any VFF running at all?  My reasoning is simple but not obvious, so please bear with me.

The online discussions tend to center on two primary tenets:  Barefoot running is more "natural", and traditional running shoes can damage some runners.  My personal experience emphatically supports that last point, but I'm a "broken" runner, so my case isn't typical.

So what about that "more natural" claim?  The arguments for it are passionate, with some interesting evidence I found to be persuasive but not conclusive.  However, my curiosity was spiked: What would change if I tried running in VFFs?  How would they affect my comfort and performance?

I got my VFFs right after Christmas, while I was still recovering from my stress fracture, though I didn't start running in them until early this spring.  When I did start with them, I ran only on soft surfaces (sand, turf, padded track), and only for 5 minutes at a time. I slowly built up to 20 minutes running, about 2 easy miles, then stopped adding both distance and speed.  These days, I run in them only twice a month.

Why so little use?  Because I immediately learned what was most important to me: Running in VFFs reveals where my gait can improve, and provides instantaneous feedback as I find and incorporate the needed improvements.

From my perspective, having less between my feet and the ground gives me much more sensitivity and input from my feet, and I become much more aware of irregularities and imbalances in my stride.  Conversely, swaddling my feet in socks and shoes (even minimalist shoes) is equivalent to making my feet slightly numb.  Occasionally experiencing the "direct" sensations from running in my VFFs also helps me be more aware of what my feet are doing while wearing shoes.

I use my VFFs as a way to check that my shod stride is OK, since the first 100 yards in VFFs will let me know if there is any discomfort or awkwardness I should address.  Rather than thinking of my VFFs as running shoes, I view them as another training tool that provides important information, right up there with my Garmin Forerunner 305.  Somewhat similar to how I sometimes ride a spin bike instead of my road bike:  Doing a given activity with different equipment and/or in a different environment permits subtle aspects of the activity to be sensed and focused upon.

I believe many of us can benefit by becoming "more natural" runners.  A good way to do this is to run barefoot or in VFFs.  But I do not believe we need to completely give up our regular running shoes and socks to achieve the desired results.  I suggest the following three-phase process:

1. Starting out, do lots of short and easy barefoot/VFF runs to let your stride stabilize and find a comfort zone.  This may take 1 to 3 weeks.  If possible, try to limit regular running shoe use during this time: For example, do this in the off-season.
2. Continue light/easy running for the next 1 to 2 weeks.  During each run, frequently switch back and forth between shoes and barefoot/VFFs until the transition between them is smooth and effortless.
3. Return to normal training in shoes, and periodically do some short/easy barefoot/VFF runs to ensure the stride is still OK.

I'm presently doing 15 minutes of VFF running twice per month.  I believe I may be getting 99% of the positive benefits of barefoot/VFF running with none of the negatives.  Plus, with such light use, my VFFs are going to last forever.

Increasing Running Cadence / Turnover Rate

The single most prevalent feature I see among miserable / uncomfortable runners is a slow cadence / turnover rate.  A very low rate means a very long stride, and the slow rate and long length makes for a harder impact.

Rather than have a low rate of hard impacts, why not have a higher rate of softer impacts?  Even if you don't go any faster, a more rapid cadence can make running much less stressful on the feet and legs.

A note about Cadence vs. Turnover Rate:  Cadence has units of revolutions per minute (rpm), and in running it is the number of times per minute a given foot (either right or left) hits the ground. Turnover rate has units of beats per minute (bpm), and in running it is the number of times per minute any foot (both right and left) hits the ground.  That is to say, cadence looks at only one leg, while turnover rate looks at both.  So a cadence of 90 rpm is the same as a turnover rate of 180 bpm.  Most running articles and books talk about turnover rate, but most shoe pods measure cadence.

When I started to increase my own cadence, I noticed another effect:  I stopped twisting my ankles!  I've always been plagued by "weak" ankles that would twist and sprain with the slightest provocation, such as stepping off a curb.  I can't count the times I've "rolled" my ankles while running, where my normal pronation would keep going and I'd "run over the side of my foot".

Of course, a physical therapist would instantly identify the true cause as being chronically over-stretched tendons and ligaments combined with weak stabilization muscles.  Once this state is entered, it is tough to recover without severe activity limits combined with physical therapy.  As a new triathlete returning to running after a 25+ year absence, I didn't want to have to quit running so soon after returning to it!

Unfortunately, as I increased my turnover rate, I found it was almost impossible for me to maintain the higher rate:  The moment my attention drifted, I would return to my bad-old slow pounding rate.  And even when I did manage to maintain my focus, data from my Garmin shoe pod made it very clear that my cadence was varying wildly.

After doing some internet searches for more information, I learned that some runners had to resort to running with a metronome to maintain a desired turnover rate.  Many different metronome brands and models were mentioned, but most seemed either too delicate, too heavy, too expensive, or too quiet/loud to be used for daily running.

After several shopping searches I stumbled upon the Seiko DM50, a small, inexpensive metronome with adjustable volume, and it even had a clip on it!  To avoid annoying those around me, I used the quietest setting.  For runs in quiet areas (away from traffic) I clip it to the waistband of my running shorts, and in noisy areas I clip it to the neck of my T-shirt.

But to what rate should I set the metronome?  After more online research and some personal experimentation, I decided I wanted to use a cadence that would be just below the fastest cadence I could sustain during a best-effort 50 meter sprint.  My Garmin said I was averaging a 100 cadence on such sprints, which equates to a turnover rate of 200 beats per minute.  I set the metronome to a 2-beat rhythm ("beep-boop") at 190 beats per minute.

My reasoning behind selecting this setting is surprisingly simple:  My research showed that all the top running authorities agree it is far harder to change to a new cadence than it is to adjust stride length.  Since my goal is to run as fast as I possibly can, I decided it makes sense to learn to use that fast cadence now, then simply extend my stride length as my conditioning and skills improve.  Since I doubt I'll ever be able to sprint during an entire endurance run, something below my maximum sprint cadence is indicated.

After looking at the turnover rates of many top endurance runners and triathletes (mainly done by counting the frames between footfalls in the many running videos on RunBlogger Pete Larson's site and his YouTube channel), it seemed most had rates between 180 and 200 bpm.  But most top runners have fairly long legs.  When I restricted my search to those with legs that looked to be like mine (32" inseam), the fastest runners tended to cluster close to 200 bpm.  So it seems it was no accident that my own top sprint turnover rate was 200 bpm!

I should mention my 50 meter sprint average speed was only a 6:15 pace.  Vastly slower than the top marathoners I was observing.  Which is why I set my metronome to a slightly slower rate of 190 bpm (95 rpm).

One neat aspect of this number is it nicely matches my cycling cadence.  My best hammering on the bike occurs at cadences between 90 and 100 rpm, depending on the terrain, the gear I'm using, and my fatigue level.

Making my legs match this rate while running has been tough!  I soon found that when I did manage to complete an entire training run at this rate while averaging a comfortable 9:30 pace, my legs were much less fatigued, though my lungs were working significantly harder.

The harder breathing at the higher turnover rate clearly highlights my lack of cardiovascular conditioning, while it simultaneously demonstrates the stress on my leg muscles and joints has been significantly reduced.  I suspect part of the issue is that my leg muscles will need lots of time to fully adapt to the higher turnover rate, and I expect their oxygen demand will decrease over time.

One neat side-effect has been that I've been able to reduce some of my bike training and replace it with running:  Running at the higher cadence seems to complement my cycling, so less saddle time is needed to maintain my performance level.  Of course, when it comes time to improve on the bike, I'll have to add that bike time back in.

I do wish it worked the other way:  I'd much rather increase my biking if it would permit me to reduce my running while sustaining or improving my run performance.  Biking is so much easier for me than running.  The universe seems to be a one-way street in that area.

While I consistently train at a 190 turnover rate (95 cadence), I race without the metronome (mainly due to a fear of having small children point at me).  So I occasionally do a test run without the metronome to see how my "free" cadence is changing.  Over time, my free cadence has increased to between 80 and 85 rpm (160-170 bpm), which feels much better than my bad-old cadence of 65-75.

A gratifying change due to my training at a constant high cadence is how I handle hills.  I used to suffer when encountering any terrain that wasn't flat as a pancake.  Now when I go up a hill, I must shorten my stride in order to maintain the 190 turnover rate.  The short, quick steps make me feel like I'm motoring all the way up!  And instead of reaching the top exhausted, I'm now able to smoothly return to my normal stride length.

The best part has been the downhills.  In the bad-old days, my long stride would be extremely punishing when going downhill.  Within half a block I'd get joint pain, PF pain and shin splints as my heel pounded into the road and my foot slapped down.  To limit impact today, I still need to shorten my stride while maintaining my turnover rate, but it now feels like I'm gliding down the hill (though I suppose I must look like a hamster in a wheel).  I reach the bottom feeling fresh, ready to pour on the effort.

Unlike most runners, my downhill speed is slower than my flat-land speed.  The downhills are the only place where I feel I really need all the comfort my shoes and stride can supply.  Any stride fault while going down a hill instantly sends a jolt up my legs, which my spine converts to pain.  My current running shoes have a 4mm heel-to-toe drop.  I believe reducing that drop further, preferably to zero, will accomplish the dual effect of permitting me to increase my downhill stride length (and speed) while simultaneously giving my calves more time to absorb the impact.

That change will have to wait until my sports gear budget gets replenished.  In the mean time, I'll be quite content to watch my overall pace gradually decrease, with no reduction to my running comfort.

Personal Trainer Certification

When I had developed the initial version of my run clinic, I wanted to test it with a few willing volunteers from the triathlon club.  The club's board of directors (BoD) put up a brick wall because I had no certifications of any kind.

I initially thought this was some form of elitism, since my research revealed NO other run coaching or training programs that would help convert ex-runners and uncomfortable runners to comfortable endurance runners.  There was no certified program that taught anything close to my clinic!  Why did the board want me to have some alphabet soup after my name?

After looking into the matter, I found it's not about a piece of paper:  It's about professionalism, which really means its about liability.  Every professional practitioner of any kind, from MD to chiropractor to massage therapist, is certified by a recognized and accepted authority, is a member of a professional organization, and has liability insurance to ensure any harm they may inadvertently cause will be remedied.

The status of being a professional means you can't hide behind a liability waiver.  The waiver only protects you against things the client does against your instructions (such as "Stop if you feel any pain!").  If the client is harmed while acting according to your instructions, you may be liable.

A run clinic for "broken" runners is certainly not a minimal-risk environment! The club BoD was absolutely right: It would be very wrong for the club to permit me to offer a clinic to its members without professional certification and liability insurance.

So I looked at all the professional certifications I could realistically pursue, including Physical Therapist, USAT Level 1 Triathlon Coach, Certified Personal Trainer (CPT), and a few others.  The one most relevant to my run clinic is CPT, though the USAT Level 1 Coaching cert may be more useful in the long run.

The USAT Level 1 coaching certification is relatively simple to acquire:  It takes only money to travel to and attend a certification clinic.  Total cost, about $1000.  Unfortunately, the next clinic I could reasonably attend isn't until September.  Plus, the cost is an obstacle right now, though it may not be in September.

For the near term, becoming a CPT seems to be the way to go.  A quick online search reveals literally a dozen or more different Personal Trainer certification programs out there, several of which have national-level recognition and acceptance.  Most of them are either online programs, or DVD-based, or both.  Only a very few are in-class hands-on programs.

I've been working with a personal trainer 2-3 times a week for a decade. Over those years I've often "traded up", and I now believe I'm working with one of the very best personal trainers in all of San Diego.  I think I'm getting as good or better "hands-on" training than any classroom course could provide.

So I decided to restrict my search to the DVD and online certification programs.  Several of these also had good national acceptance. Unfortunately, the total certification costs of those programs tend to start at $1000 and go up from there.  And each program has different recertification costs and insurance rates.

I decided to restrict my focus to the cost of insurance, which is where the rubber hits the road:  If I want at least $2 million in coverage, which program gets me certified with the lowest total cost when insurance is included?

The result surprised me.  No, it shocked me!  The ACT Certification program has a FREE certification available, though it has an annual insurance cost that happens to be $5 HIGHER than the paid program + the discounted insurance.  The total cost for a 2 year ACT certification + 2 years of insurance?  The annual costs are the $65 program fee + the $105 insurance premium, or $170/year.  Which, for two years is $340.  That's less than what some programs charge just to take their exam!

While ACT has not yet been accredited by a national agency, they are absolutely committed to obtaining NCCA approval, and it looks like they will acquire it before the end of this summer.

What amazes me is that their insurance company sells insurance to ACT-certified personal trainers at such a reasonable rate.  Someone has done the risk assessment, and has found the ACT approach worthy.  I wonder why other certification programs have much higher insurance rates?  Perhaps they are padding the total to obtain maximum profit.  If that's the case, then ACT has gained even more of my respect.

ACT claims one of their goals is to turn the economics of the fitness certification industry on its head.  Their low program costs and low insurance rates seem to back this ideology to the hilt.

After all, I am the one doing all the work to get certified!  What does the certification program itself do?  Once the course is designed, implemented and approved, everything else is either stamping out copies or computer-based.  Basically, minimal per-student costs, even allowing for ongoing program development and improvement.  You can get a high-volume web server from GoDaddy that can support millions of users for a total cost of under $10/month:  The recurring costs to present an existing online program truly are minimal, even trivial.

I can't judge the quality of the ACT content.  But then, I don't feel I need to: Their insurance provider has done their own due diligence.  Then again, I haven't read the insurance policy itself yet, so I don't really know what it does and does not cover.

I do get it all for only $14.66/month: Training, certification, CEU (Continuing Education Unit) classes, recertification, and insurance.

At this price, it seems silly to pay more now, since I'm planning to get the USAT cert eventually.  At the very least, the ACT program is a minimal investment that is worth trying, just for the hell of it.

ACT, here I come!

Interviewing and Assessing

Sorry for going so long without a post!

I've been spending the past several weeks talking to folks who are ex-runners or have problems running, and trying to form accurate assessments of their current condition and the likelihood I'll be able to help them.

It seems everyone has their own personal horror stories related to running.  When the stories are told in the present tense, I want to understand if the problem is transient or continual, and if it is due to poor running form, inadequate strength, or a deeper medical issue.

Turning stories into assessments is tough!  After the story, I ask questions to learn more, generally to separate emotional pain and frustration from physical pain, and to separate physical causes from physical effects.

An example: I had one friend going on about minor annoying knee pain that became agony when running.  I asked about his warmups, asked if he had changed anything (such as shoes, route, or duration), and asked if anything else aggravated his knee.  It wasn't until well into our discussion I asked "When did you knee start to hurt?"  His answer was informative: "Right after I slipped and fell in my kitchen."

The problem had nothing to do with running, and everything to do with letting a damaged knee heel.  He didn't need any developmental running help from me:  I told him to go to his doctor to ensure no soft tissue was damaged and no bones where chipped or cracked.

Doing a good interview isn't trivial.  I've seen many folks (help desks, doctors, physical therapists, car mechanics, etc.) ask questions until they find something "interesting", then take off on a tangent instead of completing the interview process.

To ensure I stay on track until the interview process is completed, I'm building a list of things I want to know about a problem runner, and good questions to ask to get than information.

Even with the best interview in the world, I'm still only getting the person's subjective observations.  Objective information is critical not only to establish facts independently of the person's story, but also to learn what is subjectively most important to that person, and as a chance to identify missed items for additional discussion.

So along with each subjective story, I must also ask the person to perform objective tests.  It is important these tests don't aggravate any condition:  The fundamental premise in providing any kind of training or care must be: "First, Do No Harm."

If the person can't walk without difficulty, then clearly there's nothing I can do for them related to running.  If they can walk comfortably, then a wide range of tests are possible.  Going from simplest to most difficult, the list includes:

1. Monitor the walking gait.  Is it smooth and symmetric?
2. Watch how the person gets out of a chair.  Can they stand up directly, or do they need to push themselves up?
3. Can the person balance on one foot?  With eyes closed?
4. How difficult is it to do squats?  Squat-and-hold?  How many are possible?  Is one leg favored over the other?
5. ...

The list goes on.  The key thing is to sequence the tests in order of increasing difficulty, to learn as much as possible from each test, and then to stop when things become too difficult.

But the list of tests should not grow without end: It is important for me to employ only those tests that provide information I can do something with, and avoid tests that may reveal limitations that have nothing to do with running.  Not only do I want to avoid wasting time and effort, but I also don't want to go into information overload!

The assessment process doesn't end after the initial interview: When run training starts, it is important to continue to perform assessments with each new exercise and drill.  With repetition, the exercises and drills will stop providing new information concerning symptoms, and will start indicating progress toward the goal of creating a comfortable runner.


I've done many online searches looking for good interview and assessment guidelines and techniques, and there are surprisingly few that not only describe what an interview and assessment should achieve, but also provide meaningful guidance toward developing interview and assessment procedures, and designing the individual steps required.

The best I've found come from the medicine and psychology fields, but they are way too technical and academic for me to gain knowledge I can apply to my own run clinic.  Training and coaching guides provide lots of examples, but little pedagogy.  Or perhaps what I was searching for is just "common knowledge" in those in various fields, and not needing much in the way of discussion.

The one thing that has helped me most in developing my interview and assessment has been my experience with interviewing potential new hires, and also with being interviewed for new positions.  It is vital to get the greatest amount of relevant information in the limited time available, and to use that information to make the best decision possible.

In this case, I'm interviewing potential members of my run clinic, and hopefully they are simultaneously interviewing me as well.  I need to get the information I need to determine if they should seek medical advice instead of joining my clinic.  If I think I can help, I need to communicate that in a manner that will gain agreement and commitment from the person:  I have no reason work with an unwilling or unhopeful client!

I initially thought the target and method of my clinic was what made it unique and worthy.  I'm now beginning to suspect that the interview and assessment process will be at least as important in determining successful outcomes as the clinic itself.

Running without running

My reply to a comment in a prior post reminded me I haven't talked much about the transition from preparing to run (via exercise and stretching, to be described in greater detail in a future post) to actually running.

Once the body is made strong enough to run (via exercise), and is made capable of the range of motion needed to run (via stretching), how do we best proceed from being stationary to eventually running?

The key element of this process is training the muscles to fire with the basic order and timing (the muscle firing 'pattern') needed for running.  For me, this process has two intermediate steps or stages between being stationary and running: 

1. Running in-place (at a nominal 190 bpm cadence).
2. Jogging (also at a 190 bpm cadence).

I really like running in-place for several reasons:

1. It is easy to get the legs to move at the rapid 190 bpm cadence, since there is no need to simultaneously generate forward propulsion.
2. It gradually builds calf muscles in precisely the way needed for running.
3. It is impossible to run in-place on your heels!
4. It develops dynamic balance with no risk of falling.
5. Impact can easily be varied from zero to the level seen in light running.
6. There is minimal torque on the joints, especially the knees and hips.

Running in-place must start gradually.  Initially, only the heels leave the ground.  When it becomes easy to sustain the 190 bpm cadence for several minutes, then the toes may be lifted barely clear of the ground.  When this becomes easy, then the toes may be lifted higher, until they reach half-way up the shin, at which point the foot impact will approximate that of running, and significant arm swing will be needed to permit this to be sustained comfortably.

Another neat feature of running in-place is that there is an easy, even trivial, transition to jogging:  Rather than putting the foot down in the same place, it is instead placed an inch forward of its prior place.  Then two inches.  Then 4 inches.  Then the length of the foot.  This can be done gradually, over days or weeks, to ensure propulsion skills are developed smoothly.  And it is all done at a constant and uniform cadence.

When the stride has lengthened to where the feet no longer overlap, then that meets my minimal definition of jogging.  Beyond this point, a more forceful arm swing comes into play.

The process continues, always at a constant 190 bpm cadence, until the stride lengthens enough to permit the forward speed to increase until a pace of 10:30 minutes per mile is reached and exceeded, at which point the definition of running has also been reached.

Notice how seamless and smooth the flow is from being stationary to running.  There is no sudden change anywhere along the path.  All aspects of the gait can be continuously monitored and adjusted well before any issues cause discomfort, pain or injury.

If you have problems running, see if you have problems jogging.  If you have problems jogging, see if you have problems running-in-place.  If you have problems running-in-place, ensure you have the required strength and flexibility.  If you lack strength, do exercises.  If you lack flexibility, do stretches.

If you have problems doing exercises or stretches, see your doctor!

Or, if you presently don't run at all, do the above in reverse:

1. See your doctor: Ensure there is no reason for you not to do light running.
2. Strengthen your legs with focused exercises.
3. Develop the required flexibility via careful stretching.
4. Start running in-place at 190 bpm.
5. Start adding tiny amounts of forward motion.
6. Proceed to jogging.
7. Add more forceful arm swinging.
8. Proceed to running.

That's it.  That's the condensed version of my complete recipe for turning a non-runner (typically an ex-runner) into a runner.  Additional details will be spelled out in future posts.

A reply to Steve Magness.

In his Science of Running blog,  running guru Steve Magness recently posted a pair of articles called "How to Run: Running with proper biomechanics".

I posted a reply (a link to it will be here after it gets posted).  Please read it and the above article before continuing.

To summarize, Steve provides a very lucid description of the key elements of running, then provides a poor way to apply them.  His method requires you to run in order to learn to run.  A tautology at best, nonsense at worst.

I'd like to discuss what it means to 'create a runner', that is, to change a 'non-runner' into a 'beginner runner'.  I'll focus not on the science, but on what we should have a true newbie do to become a runner (backed by science, but not mentioned to the newbie).

So, what is a 'non-runner'?  Someone who can't run?  No, because if you can't run you probably need medical attention, not a run tutorial.  A non-runner is someone who doesn't run by choice.  Where adults are concerned, the vast majority of 'non-runners' are actually 'ex-runners'.  Most often, the decision not to run was forced by injury, pain, or sheer misery.  Non-runners are people who can run, but don't, because they don't know how to avoid repeating the same bad experiences.

I was such a runner.  In the mid-'80's (my late 20's) I joined the 10K craze, broke 45 minutes, then quit when I had pain not only during racing, then during training, then after running, and then eventually for days after running.  I stayed quit for 30 years, until almost 3 years ago, when I started triathlon.

I love triathlon!  It was the motivation I needed to do whatever it took to return to running.   I have not only reinvented myself as a runner, but I've had to do so three separate times, as age-related degeneration and injuries forced additional changes.  I own a dozen pair running shoes, all less than 3 years old.

Before turning someone into a good runner, you must first turn them into a safe and comfortable runner, one who is free of both pain and injury.  Speed and efficiency don't matter at this point: All that matters is getting the person to run in a way that is much more successful than whatever they tried before.

What can we do for the 'broken' runner who is always getting injured?  For the 'bad' runner who is always in pain, but keeps going until something breaks.  For the 'miserable' runner who finds no joy, but keeps grinding out the miles until they finally give up, or find pain and injury.

Do we give them 'cues'?  Or do we give them a whole new starting point?  Such runners must never be allowed to repeat prior damaging habits, as would be required by running while waiting for 'cues'.

Since I've had to relearn running 3 times in less than 3 years, I may have a rather unique perspective.  Being a new and enthusiastic triathlete, I had motivation to not give up, to persevere.  Being an engineer, I had the skills needed to approach the task analytically, in both an evidence-based and results-oriented manner.

I studied and applied everything I could find. Read the books, articles, blogs and scholarly papers.  Even got some textbooks to plow through some of the mumbo-jumbo, and skimmed some online college courses.

What did I learn?  The running community can't even agree on the words it uses, the terminology used to describe and define key aspects of running form, and how the body is best used to achieve this form.  Part of the lack of agreement is due to lack of knowledge and research.  Some is due to the building of isolated sub-communities (running cults) and ivory towers.

Bottom line, from the perspective of the true beginner runner, physiology is crap.  Kinematics is crap.  Biomechanics is crap.  Just about every knowledge domain related to running is crap.  It simply isn't what a beginner runner is interested in, or needs to know.  Telling them about it simply places yet another barrier, an intellectual barrier, between them and running.

So, what does the beginner runner really need?  Another way to look at it is by asking what it is not: When does a runner stop being a beginner, and become an intermediate?

Personally, I believe an intermediate runner is one who has achieved basic goals of speed and distance, and feels limited by their knowledge, rather than their bodies or their experience.  I believe Steve's article is aimed at just this type of runner, the intermediate who is done with being a beginner (or the coach helping such a runner).

So, what is the beginner runner?  Well, consider the minimal differences with the non-runner previously described.  Clearly, for a non-runner to run, they must avoid the circumstances that made them a non-runner in the first place, else to that domain they will quickly return.  This transition requires an approach to running that is certain to be free of injury, pain and misery.

That is my definition of the beginner runner: A non-runner who is learning an approach to running that is both safe and comfortable, possibly even enjoyable.  In this context, perhaps a more accurate term for 'beginner' runner would be 'remedial' runner, one who is genuinely starting all over again, rather than continuing on from their last point of failure.

Does Steve's article provide such an approach?  If it does, I didn't find it.  What would such an approach have to provide?  At the very least, it must provide a straightforward path to learning the simplest and safest running gait possible.  A gait that is simple enough for everyone, while simultaneously being general enough for everyone.

Does such a gait exist?  Clearly I must believe so, otherwise I wouldn't be writing all this.  But before I describe my version of it, let's pause to reflect on what we seek.

The general beginner gait must certainly meet the requirements of good form so well described in Steve's article, sacrificing only some speed and efficiency in pursuit of safety and comfort.

Unfortunately, I found no explicit mention of either safety or comfort in Steve's article.  Perhaps safety is implicit, but comfort is only defined by its absence, not as a desirable factor in and of itself.

I believe comfort is the single most important factor that is relevant to turning a non-runner into a beginner runner.  From the beginner's perspective as an ex-runner, little else matters.

How can we get from 'non-running' to comfortable running without passing through any pain zones?  More importantly, how can we teach good form without getting into all the (excellent!) technical stuff in Steve's article?

Should we take it 'slow & easy'?  That approach works well in many areas of physical endeavor, such as swimming and bicycling.  Unfortunately, running ceases to be running when it is done 'slow'.  And as for 'easy', I haven't found an 'easy' way.  My way is 'hard': Not in the sense of grueling or arduous, but more in the sense of challenging and requiring focus and attention.  More like learning to juggle as compared to becoming a bodybuilder.

As Steve says in his article, we must not treat running as 'natural', which makes doubly good sense when applied to an ex-runner.  So we can't ask an ex-runner to just start running and wait for 'cues'.

What should we do instead?  How can we get an ex-runner from a 'bad gait that shall not be repeated' to a 'new & improved' gait?  And just what is this 'new & improved' gait built from?

Steve's article defines many of the characteristics of such a gait.  But the article doesn't say a single word about how to obtain such a gait (aside from giving 'cues').

For the ex-runner, the new gait must meet just one requirement:

1. Running should be comfortable, both during, right after, and long after.

The only discomfort a healthy beginner runner experiences should come from just two sources: Muscle growth and muscle fatigue.  Nothing from the bones, joints, tendons or ligaments.

The gait must also be both minimal and sufficient to be considered running. Before we go any further, let's agree on a working definition for running:

• Running is a means of human locomotion that is faster than 10:30 minutes per mile, where no more than a single foot is in contact with the ground at any time.

• Jogging is running at speeds of 10:30 minutes per mile and slower.

I realize the above definitions may seem a bit arbitrary, but I use them to make it clear that we want to create runners, not joggers.

Where to start?  Let's start with the minimal motions every runner must perform:  Pushing the leg down and back, and lifting the leg up and forward.  How can we get ex-runners to perform these motions without running?  We start by running in-place, focusing first on the up-down aspects of dynamically supporting the body against gravity before considering locomotion.

Before we ask any ex-runners to run in-place, we first must ensure they are able to do so.  That means ensuring their legs are able to support their weight.  Remember, many non-runners could have trouble getting up a flight of stairs.  We must ensure their legs are ready for the stresses of running in-place.

The simplest way to ensure this is to start with squats.  Feet shoulder width apart, gradually lower the body so that the knees bend, extending over the feet, not out to the side.  Stop and pause briefly when the top of the thighs are level to the ground.  Then gradually straighten the legs until fully upright.

Basic leg strength is assured when a person becomes able to do 30 squats, taking 1 second down, 1 second pause, and 1 second up.  That is at least 90 seconds of squats (assuming no pause at the top).

Unfortunately, running uses only one leg at a time, so we also need to ensure each leg is individually strong enough.  And that means doing single-leg squats.  The important thing here is to never fall to the ground.  Start with a chair behind and support nearby.  Lift one foot clear of the ground (an inch or so is adequate).  Initially, slowly bend the knee to 45 degrees, then slowly extend, without pause.  Repeat until able to slowly sit in the chair and get out of it.  Continue until able to barely touch the chair and return to vertical 5 times in a row.  Then take away the chair, and repeat until the top of the thigh becomes horizontal.  When able to do 5 reps with each leg, the legs are ready for running in-place.

Now, this degree of leg strength is not needed by most runners.  But for safety, it is required for all beginners.  We want to ensure not only success, but also safety and comfort while running.  A little overkill in the strength department is both warranted and required.  As an example, consider the successful obese runner (I know several).

Before we start running in-place, we need to set a cadence.  This cadence should be compatible with fast distance running that is still safe and comfortable.  I've arbitrarily selected a cadence of 190 beats per minute, at the low end for fast distance runners.

Why emphasize such a high cadence at the very beginning?  All the evidence I've seen, from formal research and anecdotes, and particularly from barefoot runners, indicates that learning to maintain a high cadence is the single most difficult skill to acquire along the path to becoming a fast and injury-free runner.  So why not tackle the hardest aspect of running right at the very beginning?

If long-term success is the goal, to create a lifetime runner, then learning a fast cadence early can only smooth the path to future improvement.  But it does far more than just that:  When we get the beginners to actually run, we want each step to be as gentle as possible, with minimal stress, strain and impact.  A bunch of fast, tiny steps will be vastly better than fewer big ones.  So a fast cadence also helps us succeed in the near term.

So, get a metronome (I use the Seiko DM-50: It's cheap, and has a convenient clip for attaching to clothing) and set it to 190 bpm.

To run in-place, the beginner will start by standing vertically, with knees slightly bent.  Then alternately lift each heel off the ground in time with the metronome, keeping the toes always in contact with the ground.  Have them experiment with the degree of knee bend, finding the minimum bend that also produces minimal bounce.  Continue for at least 60 seconds.

As comfort and endurance grow (possibly over days), start lifting the toes barely off the ground, still at a 190 cadence, still for at least 60 seconds.  Continue to raise the toes higher, until they are at least 2 inches from the ground.  The only caveat during this phase is to avoid ankle stress: Maintain proper alignment of the knee over the foot, and stop before entering a fatigue state.

The goal here is to get lots of time at a 190 cadence, and also to gradually transition from bulk leg strength to plyometric strength.  Even as other skills are added, running in-place should be used as a warm-up tool by beginner runners.  Being able to run on cold muscles is something most runners take for granted: For a true beginner, cold legs are an invitation to a stumble and fall.

While initially running in-place, the beginner will be using a 'natural' arm swing.  When the beginner is able to raise the toes, it is time to start adding variation to the arm swing, so the beginner can directly experience the effects before actually using them running.


Let's pause the beginner lesson for a moment to return to Steve's article:  I believe the arm swing is both more critical and less formulaic than Steve describes.  The underlying physics involves complex coupled pendula (the arms and legs coupled via the torso while the legs generate propulsion).

Arms, legs and torsos each have different relative masses and lengths in different runners.  Making all this balance will generally require differences in arm swing for each and every runner.  A further complication is pace and grade/terrain, which also require different arm swings.  Finally, various forms of fatigue also add their own complications to the arm swing.  And it is seldom the case that the elbow flexion mimics the knee:  Often there is no elbow flexing, but it is important to know when to add some!

How can we tell if we are using the best arm swing for a given situation?  I've looked for physical explanations, but the best way I've found is to go by feel: Experiment with a very wide array of arm swings and swing dynamics, and see which helps make the gait faster, smoother, easier, and more comfortable.

It is important for every runner to practice the full catalog of arm swings in a variety of situations.  This permits that 'feel' I mentioned above to be developed and calibrated, to become a useful tool.


To return to the beginner lesson, the first arm swing situation occurs while running in-place.  The beginners should be encouraged to try every arm motion they can think of that is compatible with their running in-place.  Wide swings and narrow swings.  Arms straight, and thumbs touching shoulders.  Elbow locked, and elbow bending during each swing.  The  only caveats being that the arms must stay in the plane of the leg motion (never cross in front of the body), and the wrist should not go above the chin or behind the ribs.

Get each beginner to find the arm swing that makes running in place 'easiest', which in this context means lasting longer before stopping due to fatigue.  The final arm swing should be fairly forceful.  The goal here is to recognize that proper use of shoulder muscles can make running easier.


The next step is to add forward motion to the running in-place.  Again, we first must consider what is needed to ensure this motion will be safe and comfortable.

When running, the leg must swing forward and backward.  And most non-runners (excluding yoga and pilates enthusiasts) will have tight hip flexors, so tight that they can't physically run without pushing their butt out to permit rearward leg swing.  This impediment must be corrected prior to permitting a person to start forward motion.

So, we need to add gentle stretches for the hip flexor.  The simplest and easiest stretch is to go down on one knee, torso vertical, with both knees bent at 90 degrees, and the up leg having a hip angle of 90 degrees, and the down leg having no hip angle at all.  In this position, slowly push the up knee forward until resistance is felt, then hold for 5 seconds before slowly returning to vertical.  Repeat, but stop before the down knee becomes uncomfortable.  Some will require a pad under the knee to perform this stretch.

This stretch can be modified to kill two birds with one stone, to strengthen the leg while simultaneously stretching the hip flexor:  After finishing one hip flexor stretch, slowly extend the legs to return to vertical, then slowly drop to do another hip flexor stretch (that is, adding a stationary lunge).  Alternate legs every 5-10 reps.

At this point, the beginner can start moving forward at a 190 cadence taking steps that are no longer than 6 inches (shoes always overlap).  This short step ensures that no stabilization issues will arise.  Run in this manner as often as needed until the beginner is able to comfortably cover at least 400 yards (one loop of a track).

Before attempting longer strides, we must again ensure the body is properly prepared for the stress.  The above short-stride exercises will, in time, build the calves to the needed strength and ensure ankle stability.  The other issues to consider include knee and hip stability, which includes lateral mobility and strength.

The most important concerns in this area are the ITB and the knee ligaments.  Rather than detail the simple and effective stretches and limbering motions available for these areas, I'll try to bring this long post to some kind of a conclusion.

The above path to running is both gradual and gentle.  If at any point along the above path the beginner experiences pain, a medical referral is highly advised.

My own path started with a return to heel-striking, this time getting shoes that would keep my heel as far from the road as possible: The Mizuno Wave Creation did this job admirably well, while also providing significant energy return.

Soon after getting some of my speed back, I developed massive low back pain, which I initially attributed to learning to ride my bike in a deep aero position.  After months wasted tweaking my training, I finally went to a Sports MD and learned that my L5-S1 disc had evaporated.  While 90% of folks with this condition also have a subluxated L5 and require spinal fusion, my L5 had managed to stay in place, so I was able to use muscle relaxants and PT to regain full function.  The PT gave me the leg strength I had previously lacked.  But I was no longer able to tolerate any heel impact.

At this point, I got the Chi Running and POSE books, started to switch to a mid-sole strike, and got new shoes (Asics).  Much better, but the pain soon returned.  I then switched to a forefoot strike and more new shoes (Sacuony Kilkenny racing flats), and thanks to the extra shock absorption provided by my calves, I was soon running without back pain.

Then, last October, just a month after completing my first Olympic distance triathlon, I got a stress fracture in a second metatarsal.  While that healed over the winter, I studied everything I could find, to learn that I needed to greatly increase my cadence.  And get new road shoes with a bit more cushioning than racing flats (Adidas Chill M).

As I returned to running, I also decided to try barefoot running, but my tender soles were not up to it.  So I got another pair of shoes (Vibram Bikila).

At this point, after three stride changes and many pairs of shoes, I'm still rebuilding my speed:  At age 54, taking the winter off really killed my conditioning, something that takes longer and longer to rebuild every time.

But I'm having more fun running than ever, and I'm confident I'll be a runner (and triathlete) for the rest of my life.

And I also think I've found a straight forward way to get non-runners and ex-runners into running.  This method will not produce an ideal gait for any runner:   But it will get any runner to the point where they will be ready to listen to 'cues'.