I don't care what you look like running. I really don't.Sure, some people make running look like really hard work, and some have movement patterns so bizarre I just have no idea how it developed to be that way. Other runners look like they are floating effortlessly. But I don't care how you look. I do care though, how your movement affects both your running economy and injury-proofness, and unfortunately the easiest way to assess this is by observing how you look when you run. So I look at you and sometimes try and change things, but it's not about aesthetics.Make sense? Good. Let's continue.I read a book recently that referred to studies that observed that runners were making themselves more inefficient by changing their running form, and then from that drew the conclusion that changing your form was at best a waste of time, and at worst bad for your running. The author argued that by simply running each individual eventually develops an efficient technique for them, and that any changes to this were introducing inefficiencies - kind of like they assume you are standing on the summit of a mountain, and the only way is down.So am I wrong to want to change your form as a running coach? I don't think so. Let me explain.Firstly, I agree that when a runner first changes their form they become less efficient. 100% agree. I don't agree however that the efficient technique that a runner "develops naturally" by running more is necessarily the most efficient technique for them. It may be relatively efficient, but often it can be better. So if we continue with the mountain analogy, my reckoning places you on a peak, but you're not on the highest one in the region. To get to the highest peak you have to first descend off the peak you are on, then reascend to the summit of the primary mountain. Basically you're on Lhotse, and have to descend to the South Col before you can summit Everest.Yep. That's a stamp.Let me give you an example:I actively changed my own technique - specifically increasing my cadence - and I worked at it for over 12 months. The first 3 months were terrible. Forcing your body to turn the legs over more quickly is, at first, hard work. But I stuck with it.Why did I persist?Well, when implementing a form change I ask myself three questions:WHY change the athlete's form? In my example, because I was suffering recurring ITB issuesHOW do I wish to change the athlete's form? In my example, by increasing my cadence (along with that came other benefits)WHAT is the planned outcome? In my example, to remove my ITB issuesAnd you know what? It did eventually get easier to maintain a higher cadence, and I no longer suffered ITB problems, and I became a better runner than I was prior to the change. And by better I mean uninjured and, in my opinion, a more efficient runner (although I don't have lab test results to back this statement up)."What was wrong with the studies the book was leaning on then?" I hear you asking. In my opinion, the study wasn't long enough. I don't have the article on hand, but from memory they observed athletes over a 3 week period; remember, I said my first 3 months were terrible. Developing efficiency takes time - 3 weeks simply wasn't long enough.So what am I saying?I agree that by running more, runners naturally develop a relatively efficient technique. But it doesn't guarantee you won't get injuries, and it doesn't guarantee that you will achieve optimum performance.So when is it worth considering changing your form?Given the necessary period of inefficiency a form change entails, I certainly don't recommend that everyone seeks and implements changes to their form. For some people, it just isn't necessary if they are happy with their current situation. If you've been running for years, are uninjured, and you're happy with your running ability, training volume & intensity, and enjoying your running, then good for you. Don't change a thing.But if you have regular injuries, your performance has plateaued, or you are about to increase the volume and/or intensity of the running you are doing, then I absolutely think that it is worth looking at your form. It doesn't mean you should change anything, but it's at least worth ruling out.Particularly for injuries. In my opinion (I stress this is my opinion only), most overuse injuries for recreational runners are due to form. This goes hand-in-hand with muscular imbalance or improper gait firing patterns that develop, ironically enough, through regular running with a less than optimal gait (which reinforces poor patterns or relies on less efficient muscles). You can do strengthening exercises until the cows come home, but you need to also re-pattern your gait to reduce the overuse stress. There's no point building giant biceps to increase your curl strength if you only then lift with straight arms and your biceps aren't called on - movement and strength go hand in hand.All that been said, at the end of the day you should be running for enjoyment and, for me at least, enjoyment means regular running (for both social, mental and physical reasons) and improving my ability - both of which necessitate that I remain uninjured so I can run, and to move at my most efficient.And then as long as you're ticking all these boxes, just keep doing your thing. I don't care what you look like running. I really don't.>>> CALL FOR COMMENT: What's your opinion - am I completely wrong, on the mark, or somewhere in the middle? And are you enjoying your running as much as Elaine enjoys dancing?This article was originally posted by Judd Adventures on blog.juddadventures.com.au
