|Does form follow function?|
Today’s run (street): 3.25 miles
Remember when you were young and your parents taught you how to run? Of course not. Kids learn to run naturally through a combination of confidence, impatience and excitement. I was thinking about this on my run this morning, as I put attention to where my feet were falling and the length of my stride. It occurred to me that all the books, magazines and web articles I’ve read about improving running technique are only corrupting what we comfortably do by nature.
I realize that this is a provocative statement. Landing on your fore foot and shortening your stride will make you a faster and more efficient runner, right? I’m not sure. I’ve observed enough runners to confidently say that the way you look while running is not a true indicator of how well you can actually run. I remember running on the Bethpage trail and seeing a woman ahead of me who was pronating so badly that it was making me dizzy. I increased my pace to pass her, until I realized I’d never catch her. Inefficient as she looked, she totally outclassed me in terms of speed.
I haven’t given up on improving the way I run, but I’m no longer willing to fight nature to do it. I’ve been running in minimal shoes for three years to promote mid-foot landing, but all my running shoes still show wear on the lateral heel, along with the mid-foot. I’m okay with that because (knock wood) I’ve had very few running injuries during the same time period. I’ll still think about the position of my arms and height of my knees when it crosses my mind during a run. The fact is, whether I do everything “right” or go with what feels natural, I tend to run just about the same.