Lance Armstrong – Running Form Analysis
Intro re-write Nov 2012
Doper, cheat, etc, etc… Doping is of course a serious matter. However, that’s NOT what this particular blog post is all about.
The aim of this video is to identify certain biomechanical and running technique based areas that currently limit him on the run, in comparison to his capacity to cycle efficiently.
Like many triathletes, the biggest area for improvement is related to his cycling background – and the hours of working in a hip-flexion pattern that cycle training entails.
If Lance can work to bring his hips and pelvis over the point of foot strike, he’ll be significantly decreasing braking forces and impact with each stride. This can be done by increasing hip-flexor/rec-fem mobility and improving glute function, to encourage a consistently neutral pelvic position. Particularly on the left side.
Not only will this improve efficiency, but it will also decrease the load going through his previously-injured left knee, and reduce the consequences of the right-side-favouring compensation strategy he displays.
6 Comments
Leave a comment. Ask us a question...







"Medicine Ball Exercises for Runners 



Great videos and analysis of the elite marathon runners and Lance Armstrong.
You make mention of how lance lands with his foot forward of his centre of mass but if you look at the marathon runner video they do the same thing. Not as much as lance but they still land with their foot in front of their centre of gravity.
One difference between the two is the angle of dorsiflexion and knee flexion at the moment of landing. Big difference between lance and the marathon runners.
It looks like Lances left foot externally rotate on push off ( hard to tell from the angle shown ). That would be inhibiting his left glute muscles.
Do you think the increased elbow Flexion on the right side is due to an asymmetrical thoracic rotation- once again hard to tell from the video.
Hi Andy, thanks for commenting. I completely agree that both Lance and the elite marathon runners land ahead of their center of mass. The majority of distance runners do I find.
In terms of coaching cues, I usually encourage runners to try to bring their CoM over the top of the landing foot, as a point to strive towards, rather than actually expecting them to actually achieve this. In reality, the only runners I’d expect to see landing directly under their CoM are sprinters.
The major differences between the two is as you rightly point out, is how the knee is positioned (both in terms of range of flexion, and position in relation to foot/ankle) at the point of initial contact.
I agree re the quality of the footage. If indeed Lance’s foot does externally rotate on push off, this would most likely inhibit glute function.
There are so many factors which could affect upper body mechanics. Yes, an asymmetrical thoracic rotation is often be compensated for though asymmetrical arm movements, without better footage and a proper assessment/history, it’s hard to make assumptions!
First and foremost, Lance Armstrong is a life long doper, and I’m disgusted to see him being praised on this site.
Hi Rik,
If you look at the date of this post, it was shortly before the s*it really hit the fan earlier this year. Yes, he’s doper and a cheat. I’m as disappointed as you. This isn’t a discussion I want to get into on this platform.
I was SO close to puling the post and video off the website!
BUT then I thought that readers should be intelligent enough to be able to see past the doping scandal, and appreciate this video for what it is – an observation into a high-end athlete’s movement patterns… Doping has no influence on these movements.
James, cudos for taking the time to reply. I don’t think you should pull the post now. I came across this post via your Twitter today, and the first sentence (which has since been removed) just did not seem right, no matter his running form.
Your comment made me go back and review the original first sentence. It was indeed wrong open the article with such praise, given the recent revelations!
Thanks for taking the time to point that out