In two of my recent articles I have discussed the importance of pacing.  I started with a look at the importance of getting the pace right and subsequently went on to review some of the evidence from an elite runners perspective.  I concluded that article by suggesting that if even or negative pacing was good enough for Haile then it should be good enough for all of us.  Having hopefully convinced you that pacing is a worthy thing to aspire to the question then is, how do I calculate my pace for my next marathon?  If I haven’t convinced you then go out and smash the first half of your next race and let me know your splits for the two halves.  One of my athletes recently completed a well paced 10km race in 37:23 so I decided to use this time to look at what is out there to try and ascertain a predicted marathon time finish.  Of course a great predictor of a marathon time is a recent marathon time!  But what if this is your first marathon?  How accurate can you predict how well you will do from shorter races and therefore what pace you should run. 

There are a number of online predictors available, from the likes of Runners World, Running Times and Marathon Guide, and I started with those.  Using the 37:23 10k finish time these calculated a range of predicted marathon finish times from 2:52 through to 2:55.  The formulas behind these calculators are clearly similar judging by the narrow range of results; albeit from a sample size of 3.  The final two metrics I looked at are two that I am very familiar with.  The first was oft quoted by the late great Frank Horwill who stated that if you take you 10km time, multiply it by 5 and then subtract 10 minutes you will get your predicted marathon time.  Looking at our time of 37:23 this would give a marathon prediction of 2:57.  The final analysis I utilized is the well known Daniels Running Formula as derived by Jack Daniels, Phd.  Using this principle our 37:23 gives us a prediction of 2:53.  As you can see we have a range of predictions from 2:52 through to 2:57.

I decided to have a look at how this last analysis faired when comparing a well known runners times.  I chose a runner who is the former world champion in the marathon, half marathon and cross country, a European champion over 10km and in cross country, atrack 10km silver medalist at the 1999 Worlds  and the 2002 Commonwealth champion at 5km.  Having represented GB at the Olympics four times consecutively (1996 to 2008) she is of course Paula Radcliffe.  Paula has a track PB of 30:01 set in August 2002 and a road PB of 30:21 set in Feb 2003; so straight away we can see a couple of factors that might affect any prediction – when did you set the 10km time and under what conditions be it terrain, or climactic.  If your 10km PB was set as a 21 year old on a down hill course with a tail wind it is not going to be a good predictor of your hilly trail marathon you are setting out to do to celebrate your 50^th birthday. Using her 10km road time as most comparable she went on to run the worlds best marathon time of 2:15:25 two months later in April 2003.  So we have narrowed the error by utilizing similar conditions and only a two month period separating both events.

Daniels Running Formula predicts Paula would have actually run a 2:21:26.  This in itself is interesting, I have never know Daniels to underestimate how fast a runner would run.  My experience has seen good correlation between athlete’s times up to half marathon but a slight tail off as a true marathon predictor.  Daniels admits himself in his book that the times he predicts are ones that with adequate training an athlete “could” achieve.  Most athletes are not adequately prepared to run to their potential.

Professor Tim Noakes’ Central Governor Theory may give an answer to that but we’ll leave that for another post.  My explanation for Paula’s result compared to her Daniels prediction is that like the under prepared athlete the predictors accuracy is less at the elite athletes level and probably an accuracy versus time plot forms an S shaped curve with good correlation for the majority of athletes.  I checked this theory against Haile’s 10km PB of 27:02 which Daniels predicts would give a 2:04:57 marathon time whereas he has a 2:03:59; less of an error band than for Paula.

I had a look then at Jo Pavey’s time from the 2011 London Marathon of 2:28:24 having moved up from much shorter distances.  Her great 31:12 10k set in Beijing would have given her a prediction of 2:24:57, so in her case Daniels has overestimated how fast she can go.  However her marathon experience will have come into play and I’m sure in Jo’s case she will go much faster.

These predictors were never designed to give pinpoint accuracy but as you can see they do put you very much in the right ball park.  Our athlete with a 37:23 is never going to run a 2:30 marathon (unless he gets significantly faster) but equally he is never going to run a 4:30 ….or is he?

We have already considered two factors that might affect a runner’s performance prediction and there are many other facets that can come into play; some I will mention here.  Your gender; are these predictors equal across genders? Your age, your athletic age and your running and marathon specific experience.  Your previous and recent training.  Have you any chronic or recent injuries?  The race day weather and of course the marathon route and terrain.

So as a coach would I recommend these predictors?  Yes I would.  The science behind them, particularly Daniels, is well founded and I have always considered the Horwill predictor to be accurate for the majority of runners.  What this will give you is a good indication and I would expand that figure out into a 10 to 15 minute band.  So for our 37:23 runner I would predict somewhere between 2:55 and 3:10 having considered some of the factors mentioned.  I would always set athletes off at a pace to hit the bottom of the band so in this case 7:15 per mile to give a 3:10 finish.  Remember as always even pacing means increased effort.  If the runner has something left in the tank at 21 miles then he can pick up the pace.  Finally, remember that a good marathon finish will be determined by correct, consistent and specific training, adequate running experience, patience and above all pacing.

I don’t need to tell the average age group triathlete that water is 1000 times denser than air.  This is a result of the billions of hydrogen and oxygen molecules that give water its density.  Therefore as a swimmer moves through the water it resists that movement with a force substantially greater than air.  This force is known as resistive drag and swimmers must literally move water molecules out of the way to open a hole to allow the body to pass through.  This is why drafting in a swim is so beneficial.  Therefore a swimmer who reduces the resistive drag they encounter will travel forwards faster and with less effort; and if that swim is the opening component of a triathlon then it is even more beneficial.

Studies (Cappaert, Pease and Troup, 1996) have shown that by reducing resistive drag alone could improve an elite swimmer’s velocity from 1.97m/sec to 2.07 m/sec.  This would reduce a 100m time from 50.50s to 48.31s.  All of this I concede is a long way from the average age group Ironman triathlete’s swim ability; but before you dismiss this article lets have a closer look at that.  Let us stick with the same differential of 0.1m/sec (2.07 – 1.97) between an optimal and sub optimal resistive drag and consider the 3800m of an Ironman swim.  The average age grouper will swim the 3.8km in say 1hr and 10 minutes or 4200 seconds.  If by making improvements in the drag of 0.1 m/sec then swimmers of equal ability but differing drag coefficients will be 420 metres apart at the end.  That is, the triathlete utilising optimal drag will be already on their way to T1 with the sub optimal drag swimmer 420 metres from shore.  Who wouldn’t want to be that optimal swimmer?

There are four main ways you create resistive drag namely: the space you take up; the shape you present to the water; sub optimal limb movements and friction.

The former two you may have heard swim coaches refer to as Form Drag.  The space that a swimmer takes up imparts on this form drag and has two components, horizontal and lateral.  One method of reducing form drag then is to remain as horizontal as possible without any reduction in propulsive force.  Swimmers take up less space in the water by keeping the body as horizontal from head to toes.  Poor horizontal alignment can result from kicking too deep and / or dropping the hips and legs too deep.  Swimmers also take up less space if they keep all the segments within the shoulder width.  In other words swimmers should not allow the body to snake down the pool with legs and hips swinging from side to side.  One common error in the stroke that coaches often see that will result in this lateral movement is the pulling of the arms too far across the midline during the underwater phase of the arm stroke.  Another is when swimmers recover their arms in a wide, lateral manner.  A vigorous circular sideward swing of the recovering arm will tend to pull the hips outward and in the direction the arm is moving.  This is the reason, if at all possible, we look for a high elbow recovery that minimises the outward movements of the arms during recovery.

As swimmers move forward friction between the skin and the water causes a stream of water molecules to be pulled along with the skin and in turn exert a frictional effect on molecules in adjacent streams.  Smooth surfaces cause less friction than rough surfaces and therefore well fitted speed suits and wet suits, and snug fitting tri or swimsuits reduce frictional drag.  Wetsuits in general also aid speed by helping with horizontal alignment and reducing form drag.  Note this is not an increase in buoyancy overall that reduces form drag but an alignment correction – hence manufacturers will use thicker neoprene on the legs of your wetsuit.  There is strong evidence that the swimmers habit of shaving down does reduce frictional drag.  Studies showed that average stroke length between shaved and unshaven swimmers increased from 2.07 m/stroke cycle unshaved to 2.31 m/stroke cycle shaved.  They also showed that this was due to a reduction of frictional drag and not an increased feel for the water.

In the past, techniques for reducing resistive drag have been overshadowed by methods for improving propulsive force.  Recently however there has been a resurgence of interest in the role that reducing drag plays in swimming faster.  Many studies now concede, and rightly so, that reducing resistive drag can improve swimming speed even more than skills that increase propulsive forces.  Think how you can improve your own drag component by making stroke changes that result in lateral and horizontal alignment improvements, making equipment selections that fit well and reduce frictional drag and aid horizontal alignment and learn how to draft effectively and efficiently during the swim portion of your triathlon.

Now, it’s well worth acknowledging that, there are a small number of Ironman athletes who genuinely do run the whole marathon with a midfoot/forefoot strike. Which is a great example of consistency of form, which I will come on to later… These athletes are few and far between, and it’s such variety between athletes which keeps my job interesting and exciting!

But, I want to take a moment to discuss the situation as it applies to the vast majority.

When a heel striking Ironman athlete approaches me and asks for my help to coach them into a more efficient midfoot striking technique, my first question is “why?”

Usually the answer all boils down to the interest from the running and tri media in forefoot/midfoot/barefoot/minimalist running over recent years, coupled with some targeted marketing from certain running shoe companies. These styles of running have been portrayed as more efficient and a more natural way to run. These claims are all biomechanically sound.

If the athlete was an ITU athlete, racing over a 10km run course, I’d suggest that we should definitely work to get them comfortable in their new forefoot/midfoot technique. But we’re not talking about 10km, we’re talking about running an Ironman Marathon… This is a completely different proposition in terms of how much volume and time they will have to maintain this now form for during training and racing.

The fatal error that many Ironman athletes make is to focus on the foot in terms of how the foot lands. Instead I encourage them to focus on where the foot lands.

Most ironman athletes come to me with at least a slight overstride, which usually encourages a heavy heel strike. This overstride is usually a result of a slower than optimal cadence for a given pace. With such an overstride (the foot landing ahead of the body) a significant braking force is applied with each step as the heel crashes to the ground ahead of the centre of mass.

By working to develop a slightly elevated running cadence, correct swing leg mechanics and improved running posture, we manage to eliminate the overstride and thus eliminate the excessive braking forces – as the foot lands closer to under the centre of mass.

This new strike under the centre of mass, dictated by the increased cadence, improved posture and swing leg mechanics, may well naturally occur with either a midfoot strike or a gentle heel strike, depending on the athlete.

However, even if the athlete now naturally moves to a midfoot strike, their capacity to maintain this for a full Ironman Marathon is questionable… Remember, they were previously a heel-striker and almost certainly don’t have the local muscle strength and endurance in the calf complex to maintain the new position for the full distance.

Some interesting research was published in 2011 by Pete Larson, who showed the significant number of marathon (not even IM marathon) runners who were midfoot/forefoot runners in the early stages of a marathon but had reverted to a heel strike as fatigue kicked in.

We know that heel striking usually comes with an increased overstride, which is an indicator of a decreased cadence for a given pace. So it is safe to assume that for the athletes in the study who had changed from midfoot/forefoot to a heel strike, their cadence had dropped and they were subsequently over striding and braking excessively.

To avoid such a big change and deterioration in form as serious fatigue kicks in, I often get Ironman athletes to practice running with a cadence that provides a strike close to under the centre of mass at marathon pace, and as such, a gentle, glancing heel strike. The technique focus in training and competition should be to maintain a steady and consistent cadence at a rate that discourages overstriding.

Here’s a great post from one of my athletes, Russell Cox that talks about developing consistency in running cadence and therefore (to a degree) overall running form during Ironman run training and racing.

There’s nothing wrong with learning to run on your forefoot/midfoot, just as an Ironman athlete make sure that you can also run efficiently (without overstriding) with a slight heelstrike.

This is all done to avoid the following: I want to avoid the situation where the athlete can ONLY maintain a optimal stride length and cadence with a midfoot/forefoot strike (due to only practising with a midfoot/forefoot strike), only when fatigue kicks in, for them to slip back to a more familiar heel strike and overstride with lower cadence – because they had only perfected good form with a midfoot/forefoot strike.

As an Ironman athlete you need to be able to avoid the overstride, poor posture and slow cadence, with with either a midfoot/forefoot strike or a glancing heel strike.

Remember, efficiency is key, and on the run efficiency stem from far more factors than simply how your foot lands!

Although I’d personally always run up to 25km on my forefoot, as I fatigue towards 30km and onwards, I move to a gentle heel strike.

If a gentle heel strike under the centre of mass is good enough for Three Time Ironman World Champion Craig “Crowie” Alexander (ironically also Newton brand ambassador!) then it’s good enough for me over a marathon!

The important factor is to train your body to be good maintain a good cadence and avoid overstriding, no matter how you land your foot.

There are obvious differences between the physical demands of running a marathon and performing a 100m sprint. However, as endurance athletes, it’s improtant to note that there are some technique qualities shown by Usain Bolt in the sprinting clip below which are equally desirable across all ranges of distance and pace. In particular:

• The foot landing under his hips – No overstride, therefore no excessive braking
• The lack of rotation through the torso – No wasted energy through rotation
• The way in which he doesn’t “bounce” at all – No wasted energy through vertical displacement

However there are some sprint specific elements which are not appropriate for distance running. In particular the very high forefoot position sprinters adopt (never allowing the heel to touch after a forefoot strike). Even with forefoot/midfoot striking distance runners, we ideally like to see the heel “kiss” the ground after the initial forefoot/midfoot contact and load.

In this second clip below (of Bolt cooling down) post race, it’s clear to see that while his technique is very different at slower paces, he still shows elements of great running form.

The foot still lands under his hips, but this time (because he’s not sprinting) he allows the heel to touch the ground bringing the foot to a flat position on the ground as he loads fully. There is a little more bounce compared to his sprinting technique. Still he maintains a relatively rotation-free torso and a straight posture.

Although the speed is less, and therefore the magnitude of the movements and the overall stride length is less, he doesn’t revert to a lazy stride and cadence, you can clearly see that he still actively picks his foot off the floor – even at this slow speed – rather than pulling the swing leg through lazily relying on the hip flexors, as we see with so many athletes as lower paces.

The research methods used MRI cross-sections of numerous different athletes to draw comparisons in body composition and Lean Muscle Mass across ages and activity levels. Some of the images collected tell a powerful story themselves.

40 Year Old Triathlete

74 Year Old Sedentary Male

74 Year Old Triathlete

To quote the authors of this study:

“It is commonly believed that with aging comes an inevitable decline from vitality to frailty. This includes feeling weak and often the loss of independence. These declines may have more to do with lifestyle choices, including sedentary living and poor nutrition, than the absolute potential of musculoskeletal aging.

In this study, we sought to eliminate the confounding variables of sedentary living and muscle disuse, and answer the question of what really happens to our muscles as we age if we are chronically active. This study and those discussed here show that we are capable of preserving both muscle mass and strength with lifelong physical activity.”

To conclude, they write:

“The loss of lean muscle mass and the resulting subjective and objective weakness experienced with sedentary aging imposes significant but modifiable personal, societal, and economic burdens. As sports medicine clinicians, we must encourage people to become or remain active at all ages. This study, and those reviewed here, document the possibility to maintain muscle mass and strength across the ages via simple lifestyle changes.”

A real case of “use it or lose it“!

To read the published research article in full, click here.

In a previous post we examined Run Pacing and suggested a methodology whereby, dependent on fitness at the time of the race, runners could achieve an even paced race.  We discussed this was even pace but effort had to increase to achieve the even pace.  It is important to note that this strategy is applicable to runners of all abilities and that optimaldistance performances are usually achieved when the time taken to complete the first half is equal to or greater than the time to complete the second.  Looking through the record books we see the World’s best runners are no exception.  When Haile Gebrselassie set his then world best time of 12:39:36 for the 5km, the first half was completed in 6:22:78 (ie 50.4% of the total time) and the second half was run in 6:16:58.  Similarly when he lowered the 10km record the same year to 26:22:75 he ran the first 5km in 13:11:53 and the second 5km in 13:11:22.

Marathon pacing can be more complex than the track as environmental factors such as runners spending longer into the wind than with it behind them or more uphill being present in one half of a race than the other will have its effect.  However the same year Gebrselassie set his world records, Renaldo Da Costa set a then world best time of 2:06:05 running the first half in 64:42 (51.3% of total) and a second half 3.3 minutes quicker.  The woman’s world best time was also set that year by Tegla Loroupe with a more even paced 49.9% first half 50.1% second.  When it comes to pacing the marathon as the last discipline in an Ironman Triathlon this pace awareness is of vital importance.

Whilst most of us can only dream of this level of performance, for runners trying to break a certain time, whether it be to break 5 hours in the marathon or trying to run a good for age time to qualify for Boston or Virgin London Marathon, trying to qualify for Kona or just trying to get close to our single marathon performance when running in an Ironman, pacing is vital to performance.  Runners must ensure they set realistic targets and adhere to a pre determined pacing plan.  The most common mistake, especially at the marathon distance, is starting too fast.  Race performance will generally be less optimal when a runner starts too fast and if a marathon runner does start too fast the adverse effect on performance will be dramatic!

If it’s good enough for Haile it’s probably good enough for the rest of us so sit down with your coach and plan those marathon pace times.

<< Read Part 1 – Getting The Pace Right

It turns out that 74% of the total group suffered significant running injury during the season – which follows figures suggested by injury surveillance studies in endurance running.

The interesting part… the Rearfoot (Heel) Strike group suffered approximately double the number of repetitive stress related running injuries, in comparison to the Forefoot Strikers.

Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a Retrospective Study

Purpose: This retrospective study tests if runners who habitually forefoot strike have different rates of injury than runners who habitually rearfoot strike.

Methods: We measured the strike characteristics of middle and long distance runners from a collegiate cross country team and quantified their history of injury, including the incidence and rate of specific injuries, the severity of each injury, and the rate of mild, moderate and severe injuries per mile run.

Results:Of the 52 runners studied, 36 (59%) primarily used a rearfoot strike and 16 (31%) primarily used a forefoot strike. Approximately 74% of runners experienced a moderate or severe injury each year, but those who habitually rearfoot strike had approximately twice the rate of repetitive stress injuries than individuals who habitually forefoot strike. Traumatic injury rates were not significantly different between the two groups. A generalized linear model showed that strike type, sex, race distance, and average miles per week each correlate significantly (p<0.01) with repetitive injury rates.

Conclusions: Competitive cross country runners on a college team incur high injury rates, but runners who habitually rearfoot strike have significantly higher rates of repetitive stress injury than those who mostly forefoot strike. This study does not test the causal bases for this general difference. One hypothesis, which requires further research, is that the absence of a marked impact peak in the ground reaction force during a forefoot strike compared to a rearfoot strike may contribute to lower rates of injuries in habitual forefoot strikers.

(C) 2012 The American College of Sports Medicine

Here’s My Coaching Perspective:

I’m not pro or anti forefoot striking or heel striking as a blanket positioning statement as a coach. The subject isn’t that simple when you’re dealing with individual athletes and their idiosyncrasies, individual strengths and weaknesses.

FYI: I’m a forefoot/midfoot runner myself and can 100% testify to the benefits – as one of those for whom it is appropriate for as a style…

I agree that habitual forefoot strikers tend to get injured less, and it probably is linked with the absence of a marked impact peak in the ground reaction force during a forefoot strike compared to a rearfoot strike. BUT what’s so often not written about is how the impact peak cited in the conclusion section above can also be greatly reduced by staying as a heel striker and simply landing the heel strike closer to under the center of mass… without having to make such a wholesale change as moving onto the forefoot – which can lead to injuries in it self.

If I’m working with an athlete who is strong enough to maintain a forefoot position, had an appropriate injury history, and was training for a suitable distance – I’d definitely encourage them to adopt a forefoot position. However, if I did this with every athlete I work with, there’d be some very broken runners leaving my care!

Then there’s the importance of the goal distance. Research by Pete Larson (@RunBlogger), published in 2011 entitled “Foot strike patterns of recreational and sub-elite runners in a long-distance road race” shows that a significant proportion of those who start long distance (marathon) running events as forefoot runners in the first 10km, often end up as heel strikers by the end of the race.

I’d be interested to see if anybody continues the injury surveillance and biomechanical research to subcategorise heel strikers. The categories could be:

• Those who heel strike AND over-stride with a low cadence
• Those who heel strike and maintain a contact closer to under their center of mass through keeping a relatively high cadence.  Therefore still experiencing less impact without going the whole way to a forefoot strike.

All food for thought… 

 If you are training for your first Ironman Distance Triathlon and I was giving you a choice of swim session, would you rather do 40 x 100m with 10s Rest Intervals or would you rather do 4 x 1000m with 1 min Rest Intervals?  The majority of athletes generally would opt for the former, and this alone would tell your coach whether you were naturally comfortable with either endurance or shorter sessions/events.  Most athletes train the way they like to train whereas the most successful athletes train the way they need to train.

What is limiting your triathlon performance?  Is it skill, technique, strength, muscular endurance, power or pure endurance?  Sit down and look at all the disciplines in a triathlon: swim; bike; run; transition and nutrition then take each of these constructs, be honest and mark yourself out of 10 for each one.  You should start to see where your performance is being limited.  Then get your coach or a friend or partner to do the same thing; do the scores match?  If you are a novice triathlete who has signed up for an Ironman then it is safe to assume you are limited by firstly endurance and secondly skill, particularly, unless you come from a swim background, in the swim.

In the case of an athlete training for the Ironman swim of 3.8km then during the race specific build up period at least one session a week would need to be an endurance type set.  This doesn’t mean jumping straight into the 4 x 1000m set, it could start with a main set of 3 x 400m and develop from there. Whereas I will always work to improve a Ironman athlete’s technique, ultimately come race day they need to swim 3800m as efficiently as possible so we have to do the endurance work.

Similarly, when looking at your bike ability opt initially for endurance work before moving to a muscular endurance phase.  You need to be able to cycle 112 miles before you can cycle 112 miles quickly – and then run a marathon off the bike.  When it comes to the run in an Ironman event it is an analogous story, as pure speed is almost never the limiter.  What is required is a long build that safely enhances run endurance and speed through consistency of training.

In an Ironman Triathlon once you have the ability to swim, cycle and run efficiently and aerobically then you possess the key constructs to put together a winning performance.

Interestingly enough, according to Brett Sutton, if Chrissie Wellington were asked the 40 x 100m versus 4 x 1000m question she would opt for the latter.  Whether this is a like or a need I do not know – but as a 4 times Ironman World Champion she knows what works.

The Deadlift exercise it self has a real negative stigma surrounding it in many parts of the health and fitness industry, often due to the tendency for athletes to simply load up an Olympic bar and try to lift as much as they can, irrespective of form. These are the same athletes who will probably end up with herniated lumbar discs…

Just Looking at This Makes My Back Hurt!…

As wil all things in this industry, the key to success and safe practice is technique. Gray Cook, Physical Therapist, Strength & Conditioning Coach, Author and Lecturer provides this excellent coaching video on how to most effectively train using a Kettle Bell variation of the Deadlift.

This is a must watch for all Triathletes and Runners who want to make full use of their Glutes to prevent injury and improve performance.

Research indicates a significant correlation between diminished Glute function and athletic injury. For example:

• In a 2007 study of Div III collegiate athletes by Cichanowski et al, 13 females who were diagnosed with unilateral “patello-femoral pain” were found to have significantly weaker hip abductor and external rotator muscle groups of the injured lower extremity.

• In a study of 15 females with “patellofemoral pain” by Ireland et al (2003), hip abduction strength and hip external rotation strength were found to be significantly less than age-matched controls.

• Robinson and Nee’s 2007 study of 10 females who sought physical therapy for unilateral knee pain demonstrated significantly less hip extension, abduction, and external rotation strength than the same number of control subjects with no known knee pathology.

• Average hip abductor (Glute medius) torque in 24 distance runners with ITBS was found by Fredericson et al (2000) to be significantly weaker than that of the uninjured limb and controls.

• Hewitt et al’s 2006 review of ACL injuries in Females reported a number of studies that demonstrated decreased Gluteal muscle activity and/or ability to absorb ground reaction forces by the hip musculature during landing in females who sustained ACL injuries than in uninjured athletes.

But, what does this all mean? How does this Glute dysfunction happen? How do you fix the problem?...

In my experience, there are two main types problem which occur around the hip and pelvis which affect Glute function, therefore creating muscular imbalances and the potential for injury:

• Glute Inhibition
• Relative Glute Weakness

Glute Inhibition

A common problem occurs then the Glutes become inhibited from engaging and therefore being able to perform their role, usually due to the position that they are forced to adopt when the ideal neutral pelvic posture becomes compromised. This issue particularly occurs in the sagittal plane of motion, creating either an Anterior or Posterior Pelvic Tilt.

The position of your pelvis in part acts to determine the leverage available to each of it’s attaching muscles, those that control the hips and lower back. This positioning is a postural pattern and extremely correctable with the right exercises. To broadly describe the ways in which attaching muscle groups can determine your pelvic position: your Hip Flexors pull down on your Pelvis while the lower back extensors pull up. The Abdominals pull up while the Glutes and Hamstrings pull down.

Optimising your pelvic tilt to achieve a neutral position enables your Glutes to sit in a position with the greatest available leverage to act on the Hip. To achieve this, the first thing we have to do is determine whether you have more of an anterior (bottom sticking out), posterior (bottom tucked under), or neutral pelvic posture.

An Anterior Pelvic Tilt means that the top of the pelvis is tilted forward, and the lower back is arched. A Posterior Pelvic Tilt means that the top of the pelvis is tipped back, with the pelvis tucked under the body, as per the diagram below, ideally a neutral position is required for optimal Glute function:

Factors such as excessive sitting during daily life can result in the Hip Flexors becoming chronically tight and over-active, pulling the pelvis into a anteriorly tilted position. This over-activity of the Hip Flexors, in particular Iliopsoas can result in a neuromuscular issue called Reciprocal Inhibition, where one muscle group (in this case the Glutes) is inhibited by the excessive activation of their antagonistic muscle group (in this case the Hip Flexors).

Here’s a video showing a couple of simple exercises to help correct an Anterior Pelvic Tilt:

Relative Glute Weakness

This occurs when the function of the Glutes is overshadowed by the disproportionate strength of other muscle groups, built up due to  habitual movement patterns and poor technique in training which creates strength imbalances.

Often, even in athletes who display a relatively neutral pelvic posture, the effectiveness of their Glute function is compromised due to the fact that other muscle groups (usually Quads) are, in relative terms, significantly stronger and more developed. This leads to the adoption of movement patterns and habits which place increased emphasis on the stronger muscle groups such as the Quads, rather than allowing the Glutes to contribute properly within the motion.

This is very common in Triathletes who spend a lot of time on the bike. No matter how well your bike is set up for you, it’s always going to be a “Quad Dominant” exercise, building strength in your thighs rather than helping your Glutes also develop equally. If left un-adressed in terms of adding exercises to target the Glutes, this kind of strength imbalance can cause injury problems over time as the body learns not to use the Glutes as it tries to favour the stronger Quads.

A classic example of a movement pattern that is usually influenced by strength imbalances is the squat. Many athletes who are “Quad Dominant” in terms of strength will squat in such a way that places excess emphasis on their Quads, placing a lot of strain on the knees. This can be observed by the knees shifting forwards over the toes and the heels beginning to lift off the ground at the bottom of the squat.

Here’s an example with using a Single Leg Squat:

It’s hugely important for athletes of all types to work on Glute activation during all movement patterns, as a muscle group they really do provide the key to maintaining postural balance and stability.

Glute and Core Exercises

Here are a couple of quick videos to give you some workout ideas: