Running Cadence

ecoli

I know some people are big fans of this and have started to implement it in there running so I thought they might be interested in this article:

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-267--14584-0,00.html

Ceepo

When i can run somewhere close to 4,10 miles i might consider this,
I would be bold enough to suggest that most on here are no where that and that 7 min would be closer to the truth, some for training some for racing,
If 180 was the magic no for elite at Olympic level do you think Joe soap should be the same. when some are closer to 9min ml.
Are they really trying to say everyone should take 180 spm and one size fit's all from the 5 foot nothing person to 6 foot 9 inch giant that i lined up against a few years ago,
Over striding is landing in front of where your body is, its not when you dont take enough steps.
I think this is another one of the things that someone came up with (Daniels) not saying he is wrong as i fact he is 100% right and some elites in the last lap often take over 200 spm, maybe that where we should be aiming for, as would we be going faster then.
Best of luck with that

ecoli

Ceepo wrote: »

When i can run somewhere close to 4,10 miles i might consider this,
I would be bold enough to suggest that most on here are no where that and that 7 min would be closer to the truth, some for training some for racing,
If 180 was the magic no for elite at Olympic level do you think Joe soap should be the same. when some are closer to 9min ml.
Are they really trying to say everyone should take 180 spm and one size fit's all from the 5 foot nothing person to 6 foot 9 inch giant that i lined up against a few years ago,
Over striding is landing in front of where your body is, its not when you dont take enough steps.
I think this is another one of the things that someone came up with (Daniels) not saying he is wrong as i fact he is 100% right and some elites in the last lap often take over 200 spm, maybe that where we should be aiming for, as would we be going faster then.
Best of luck with that

I think the article focuses on raising he cadence of normal runners and uses the "magic number" of 180 as a target to increase to rather than people who take more to reduce to.

The point Daniels tries to make is running less than 180 steps could increase injury simply because the less steps you take the more impact. Also Daniels tends to state that the spm does not vary too much regardless of speed within a runner (so last lap despite speed increase there is very little change in cadence.

Not saying I agree or disagree but I know some people here are interested and have experimented with this and swear by it.

Probably a link which better explains things is this one:

http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2011/07/the-basics-cadence/

Ceepo

So based on this then, the athlete take's the same amount of steps regardles of speed, ?
As speed is cadence + stride length i can only assume that there stride increased.
Does that not go against what Dainels was trying to achieve
Just said i would throw this into the mix,
http://sweatscience.com/the-problem-with-180-strides-per-minute-some-personal-data/

Like everything i suppose you can find a argument for or against

myflipflops

Agree with Ceepo.

Focussing specifically on your cadence and stride pattern is a 1% sort of thing that people can look at when they get to a high level.

At the stage most of us are at, simply getting fitter will improve your form and make you more economical.

Clearlier

myflipflops wrote: »

Agree with Ceepo.

Focussing specifically on your cadence and stride pattern is a 1% sort of thing that people can look at when they get to a high level.

At the stage most of us are at, simply getting fitter will improve your form and make you more economical.

I agree that getting fitter will make you more economical but not that it will improve your form. If you have a significant biomechanical flaw then getting fitter will typically end up in injury as the demands placed on the rest of the body by the flaw exceed their ability to cope.

Improving your form through drills and core work can make a small difference to your speed and economy, they can make a much bigger difference to your likelihood of getting injured.

I think that cadence is something worth considering and there are some pretty good rules of thumb but each runner is an individual and a decision needs to be made by them/their coach for them. As with most things training by all means experiment but don't make too many hard and fast rules.

sconhome

A little bit simplistic maybe, but the easiest way for the normal runner to increase their likelihood of a mid or forefoot strike is to increase their cadence. The snappy, shorter stride by default alters this pattern.

I need to fiind a link to a study I read before. Regarding the impact loading of the body relative to stride length and cadence. I cant remember all the details but basically 180 seemed to be the sweet spot of short ground contact time and effort. Higher cadence was putting more demands on aerobic system shown by HR data, lower cadence was increasing ground forces with very small variation in HR.