In reply to Webster:
> Why?
> Increasing your stride length increases the negative inertia on each foot fall, reducing efficiency. of course if your front foot fall wasn't slightly in front of your centre of gravity then you would fall over, but purely from a conceptual biomechanic point of view, the most efficient position for the front foot fall is directly below the centre of gravity.
Only if you're increasing the length at the front of the stride.
> like everything there is a desireable balance to be found between cadence and stride length, and that is different for every human body. too short a stride length and your having to make your legs work really fast for a given speed, too long a stride length and you are having to overcome too much negative inertia with every foot fall. as a fit adult human being, whatever feels natural will most likely be your optimum stride length in terms of efficiency.
Maybe if you've been coached into decent form when younger, but what felt natural certainly wasn't the most efficient for me. A few years back introducing a pelvic rotation to lengthen the back of my stride took about 5% off my 10km time practically overnight; the cue I used was to think about keeping the foot on the deck a bit longer before picking it up, and it allowed me to increase both cadence and stride length at the same work rate.
Post edited at 15:38