No, sample sizes are typically fairly small for this type of study. The problem with doing overground studies that address this type of question is that it requires that people run over a force plate, which always makes one wonder about plate targeting and alteration of stride to hit the plate – I ahve a hard enough time not being conscious of my form just when passing by a video camera, let alone trying to step on a particular spot. I don’t put much stock in results of studies that merely have people run along a short runway to hit a force plate. Until we get mobile force sensors that can do this inside a shoe without being too cumbersome we are restricted to treadmill data. I think one of the big things we are lacking in running research is more “real world” data. That’s one of the reasons I have enjoyed filming road races in slow-mo – can’t measure forces, but get to see what people really do out on the road.

Yep, I agree. Sample size of 10 makes detecting differences problematic. I also suspect the magnitude of difference would increase at a faster pace. But, I think it supports the general idea that increasing cadence reduces loading, which has been shown by other studies and is something that is advocated as effective by some highly respected clinicians.

No plans currently – they don’t appeal much to me. I’d try them, but don’t want to pay that price just to try a shoe out.

 Study here, meant to link it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…

Great story coach, and one I hear frequently. I have a buddy locally who has a very similar story. He’s an ultrarunner but had big shin problems when running long distance. Modified his stride and went to flat shoes and finished four 100 milers last year, winning one of them. Not saying everyone has to do it, but it clearly is of great benefit to some.

I think those would have an effect on my step rate and lower limb loads!

See my response to Kevin – treadmills probably provide the cleanest data we can get given the current technology, but we always have that question of how well it applies to running out on the road. I suspect the general pattern would hold, but there are clearly some differences between treadmill and overground running.

Some 45 healthy recreational runners were recruited to run on a
treadmill at their normal easy run pace (between eight and nine minutes
per mile for most). Using 3D cameras and force plates, the
researchers analyzed the stride characteristics of the runners. After a control run, the runners were asked to increase
or decrease their stride frequencies by 5 and 10% for four additional
trials.

Using computer modeling, the researchers were able to piece
together exactly how the body distributed the impact force amongst the
ankles, knees, and hips. Though they didn’t measure the loading rate
directly, they monitored the impact transient—the spike in forces at
footstrike associated with a sharp loading rate.

As predicted, when the runners increased their stride rates, the
energy absorbed by the hip and knee joints decreased significantly
(interestingly, the energy absorbed by the ankle did not change
significantly). And sharp impact transients decreased at higher stride
frequencies.

The converse of this is also true: energy absorbed and
impact transients increased when the subjects were asked to decrease
their stride rate. The magnitude of the effects increased when the
subjects moved from ±5% to ±10%. So it appears that increasing
your stride frequency by five or ten percent is a good way to decrease
the impact loading on your joints and possibly prevent injury.

Thought you might be interested in that study and analysis. Wrote more about this here if you’re interested: http://runnersconnect.net/runn…