Andrew Schrauben

On Sunday while running the treadmill side-by-side with Amanda, I conducted a little experiment. I counted how many steps I took per mile, then I counted how many steps she took. The results?

Andrew:
(~1200 steps/mile) * (7.1 miles) = 8,500 steps

Amanda:
(~3200 steps/mile) * (4.4 miles) = 14,000 steps

I ran 61% farther but she took 65% more steps! How? Well, I bounded 4.4 feet with every step while her stride covered just 1.65 feet. Why? Partly because I was running an 8:30 pace while she ran a 13:00 pace, and partly because my jeans measure a 36" inseam while hers would be 26". (FYI - I'm 6'4" and Amanda is 5'0".)

This doesn't mean that longer strides make you a better runner. In fact, a study of collegiate cross country runners (I wish I remember where I read this) found that as the runners became faster over a given distance, their average stride length became shorter! Apparently turnover is more important than stride length?

Another mantra of running is that smaller people = faster people, since they have to carry less weight and also require reduced torque for their muscles to effect rotation about a joint. (This is also why smaller weightlifters can, pound for pound, lift relatively more weight than bigger folks.)

Anyway, there's no grand conclusion to be had here; just some fun numbers and comparisons. My favorites are these:
With each step of Amanda's, she travels a distance (20") less than what my two feet cover end-to-end (24")!
With each step of mine, I travel a distance (53") slightly less than her entire body covers lying down (60")!