What To Do

Social Bookmarks

Feeds

RSS2

Runner's Training Tips: Running Cadence?

1 to 41 of 41

- CommentAuthor jsparksh
- CommentTimeMay 30th 2009
I've been doing some drills training that focus on running cadence. Knowing that everyone is different, etc. Can someone give me common knowledge on most efficient running cadence? Also, can someone clarify how cadence is counted (you count one leg for each count, not both legs, right?) The drill I'm doing just has me check cadence over 15 seconds targeting 21 or over. So, what's most efficient cadence on average? Is it normal to shorten up your stride a bit? Anyway, I'm looking for the download on this. Thanks!
- CommentAuthor ex-k1w1
- CommentTimeMay 30th 2009
jsparksh - I should've come here first rather than post a longish item in the Training Thread! In summary, 90 landings of the same foot in 1 minute is considered the ideal according to Jack Daniels. This is based on his observations of elite runners' natural cadence over many years. I check mine by counting left foot landings in a 30s period - should get in 45 or more. Bear in mind that this is one school of thought - albeit from one of the most successfull coaches of all time. Others feel that you shouldn't try to alter your own natural cadence as you can end up doing more damage by changing your natural gait. All I can say is that I have been doing it for nearly 6 months so far, and right now it feels pretty good.
- CommentAuthor Trainbellsway
- CommentTimeMay 30th 2009
Let me just add a heads up to ex-k1w1's good advice. I've read the same thing 180 steps per minute. I count the right foot for the entire minute and have been struggling around 87 (close but no cigar lol). Anyhow, you'll notice that your stride shortens at first when you try to reach the 90 steps. Don't worry! You're trying to keep your foot in contact with the ground less time so your turnover becomes faster. Once you get used to it, your stride will become comfortable again.
- CommentAuthor rpetreccajr
- CommentTimeMay 30th 2009
Does anyone know if there is a correlation between leg length and cadence? It would seem to me that there would be an inverse relationship, i.e. the longer your legs, the slower your cadence. Or maybe that is just my excuse.
- CommentAuthor jrlieber
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2009
I've heard you want to shoot for a cadence of 80-90. Somehow, I can't get out of the high 70's. Interesting that the target cadence on a roadbike is also in the 80-90 range. I use a Polar RS800 which is very reliable in tracking cadence, distance, heart rate, and altitude for those interested in tracking this information. Perhaps I'll try to push it over 80 tomorrow to see what happens - usually I just get too winded. We'll see!!
- CommentAuthor RunningKnows
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2009
pretty interesting that what seems to be the best cadence for running is the same best cadence for cycling....... pretty cool
- CommentAuthor drchele
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2009
I run with my iPod, with a song mix beginning at around 165 beats per minute, and the songs gradually increase in beats per minute to reach 180. (I use an online app to determine beats per minute for all the songs in my iTunes library, then I simply order the songs by bpm, then drag them to the playlist for my shuffle). I find that, even running without my iPod, I now know the "feel" of 170-180, and will often get a certain song in my head to keep my cadence during a race. I think doing "cadence runs" have not only increased my cadence, but my speed, and efficiency. Plus, it is fun to run to the beat, if you like that sort of thing.
- CommentAuthor EmBeeDee
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2009
jrlieber - I've got a Polar stride sensor too, and use it to track cadence. Mine averages around 88-89, more on faster runs (92 maybe), sometimes a bit less on slower ones (but never less than 86). I used to try and stride longer and slower, but it never felt quite right, and I don't do that any more since I got the Polar and discovered that shorter faster strides are considered OK. I can't imagine how you can run in the 70s - that would feel like slow motion to me! Are you very tall? My leg measurement is 32 inches btw.
- CommentAuthor aedwards92
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2009
This is interesting. I've heard in the past to "stretch it out" or take longer strides. But this always felt weird to me, and I seemed to get winded quicker. I'll have to look into the cadence theories more.

Thanks for adding 1 more thing to my to-do list
- CommentAuthor coachduck
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2009
I was watching the Stockholm Marathon and the lead pack of 6 had a guy that looked to be a foot taller than the rest. Watching their cadences, he was right with the short guys. Didn't see past the 12k mark so I have no idea how it played out. But he looked closer to jogging than running compared with the short guys.
- CommentAuthor Peacemaker636
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2009
"Stretching it out" and taking long strides will put your foot in front of your body, cause you to smash your heel into the ground (and your shoe can't absorb it all, I can guarantee), and will provide a braking force that will slow you down.

Faster cadence will cause your foot to land below your center of gravity, land more flat-footed which increases stability & helps prevent ankle injuries, cause you to land with bent knees which allows your muscles to take the force instead of joints, and will not create a "braking" force.

I don't know about you but one of these sounds better than the other
- CommentAuthor jsparksh
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2009
This was helpful. Thanks.
- CommentAuthor matt.e
- CommentTimeJun 1st 2009
Peacemaker, I don't dispute the logic but when I'm tired I find that I am plodding rather than 'running'. I get very flat footed and find that I get less and less forward momentum as I pound my feet into the ground.

To combat this, I try to lengthen my stride (actively run, rather than just throw my legs forwards a bit) and roll from heel to toe in a smoother action. I have found that this helps me to speed up and get a more natural rhythm going. Naturally, the next step for me is to do 'this' quicker but acceleration definitely comes with longer strides for me. I don't usually experience a 'braking force' when I do this as I seem to compensate. I also find that this helps me to use my gluts and hamstrings as much as my quads as I am 'pulling' with my legs' rather than just 'pushing'.

Would you suggest its a training thing to get used to taking shorter faster steps or do you think it is just a running style that I'll have to work with?
- CommentAuthor Peacemaker636
- CommentTimeJun 1st 2009 edited
All I know is that landing with your foot in front of you will eventually begin to take its toll on your joints. You may not feel any shock but that is only because the pain you should feel is deadened by the inch of rubber under your heel. I prefer lighter shoes (if any ), and I realize how it is very easy to want to lengthen your stride in normal shoes. In fact, it is more efficient to take longer strides to some extent, because heavy shoes get very tiring if you take short strides. But if you have very light footwear, it is not tiring to take short strides.

I would simply be careful and do what feels right. Try to feel if there is any impact when you lenghten your stride. If you bob up and down when you run then you may be putting unnecessary strain on your body. Also, if you place your foot in front of your body, try to do so with a bent knee. Trust me, your leg muscles are far better at absorbing shock than your joints or a chunk of foam.
- CommentAuthor rpetreccajr
- CommentTimeJun 1st 2009
I think there may be a common mis-conception of what is meant when someone tells a runner to "stretch it out" and take longer strides. Let me illustrate before I explain. Let's consider two runners who have both run 10,000 meters, say for instance myself and 10K record holder Kenenenisa Bekele. I did mine in 49:30, Bekele in 26:17.53. The fastest cadence I can sustain right now is about 160 steps/minute. Let's assume Bekele hits the ideal 180. All I have to do to run as fast as the world record holder is bump up my cadence right? Don't I wish. Best that gets me is a 44 minute 10K based on my stride length (10,000/49.5/180) of about 1.2626 meters. Bekele is covering about 2.113 meters with every step. So the only way I catch him (after the complete body transplant) is by taking longer as well as quicker steps. I have to "stretch it out."

When I was running XC & track in HS I too was told to "stretch it out" and misinterpreted that advice from my coach. I concentrated on taking longer strides to the exclusion of maintaining proper form. I got into the braking and jarring issues Peacemaker mentioned. I've had various injuries over the years that may or may not have been related. I've been working on a faster turnover and shorter strides but find it difficult to overcome decades of habit. If I am ever going to be significantly faster (though a 5 minute improvement in 10K time ain't too shabby), I will need to increase my stride length as well as my turnover while keeping good form.
- CommentAuthor tonyrosen
- CommentTimeJun 1st 2009
My coach tells me to "stretch it out" - and then instructed me that this means "leave your foot on the ground longer, and push a little more with your butt when leaving the ground."

A) It just helped me do my personal best mile average pace ...

B) It's not near as awkward as it sounds - though, it does take some getting used to.
- CommentAuthor Trainbellsway
- CommentTimeJun 2nd 2009
rpetreccajr touched on another variable to add to the mix. Stride length is not only how far apart your legs are and what part of your foot strikes the ground but the power you push off with. Push off stronger and you cover more distance before the other foot hits the ground. Glute strength comes into play there. Best way to improve that, aside from a trip to the gym, is hill repeats.
- CommentAuthor aedwards92
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009
I calculated my cadence during my easy 2 miles today. Was at about 80, way off of the 90 "ideal" mark, but it was also a very easy run today.

This got me thinking that if you got good enough at this, then you might have a very quick way of determining your pace. So if you know that your 80 steps a minute equals a 9:00 pace, or that 85 equals a 8:30, you could adjust accordingly right away.

Or is this way off?
- CommentAuthor chiggy_
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009
Rpetreccajr, your description of "stretching it out" sound a lot like just speeding up. I would bet that if you went out and ran at Bekele's pace without any thought to turnover rate or stride that you would naturally adopt a something fairly close to what he does.

My thoughts on this subject: Many if not most people naturally use a cadence and a stride length that is right for them, and over analyzing and messing with it can cause problems. The people who do seem to have more trouble with it are relatively new to running. Instead of consciously trying to fix it i believe, from observation and experience, that its something that will correct itself with time spent on the road.
- CommentAuthor Peacemaker636
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009
chiggy_:
Rpetreccajr, your description of "stretching it out" sound a lot like just speeding up. I would bet that if you went out and ran at Bekele's pace without any thought to turnover rate or stride that you would naturally adopt a something fairly close to what he does.

My thoughts on this subject: Many if not most people naturally use a cadence and a stride length that is right for them, and over analyzing and messing with it can cause problems. The people who do seem to have more trouble with it are relatively new to running. Instead of consciously trying to fix it i believe, from observation and experience, that its something that will correct itself with time spent on the road.

I agree with the fact that most people's "natural" stride/cadence will work. But just think about how naturally you can run with shoes on. Shoes affect your gait, for better or worse, and many people may have to make adjustments to the stride that is natural in shoes in order to make the stride more organic (I don't know if that makes sense but organic is the best word I could think of).
- CommentAuthor chiggy_
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009 edited
Peacemaker - Like i said before, i think the body usually makes the necessary adjustments on its own with time spent running. The point i was really trying to make is that people, especially newbies, tend to over analyze things and try to fix something that isnt broken.
- CommentAuthor MarkRTC
- CommentTimeJun 4th 2009
drchele, what app do you use to calculate the BPM of the songs on your itunes library?
- CommentAuthor rpetreccajr
- CommentTimeJun 4th 2009
Chiggy - I agree that "stretching it out" and speeding up are probably synonymous. Unfortunately, as a novice runner in HS, I didn't understand that and thought that my coach was telling me I could run faster by taking longer strides. That pretty much falls in line with your second paragraph. As far as running at Bekele's pace, well, he covered 100 meters in about 15.7s. If I tried that for even the first 100m I would probably find myself writhing on the ground in pain rather than adopting something close to his style . But, if my body could do that, you are probably right.
- CommentAuthor chiggy_
- CommentTimeJun 4th 2009
lol rpetreccajr, writhing on the ground in pain? haha well if it makes you feel better i couldnt hold that pace for very long either
- CommentAuthor mingonc
- CommentTimeJun 4th 2009
MarkRTC:drchele, what app do you use to calculate the BPM of the songs on your itunes library?

I second this! Would love to know!!

Mingo
- CommentAuthor matt.e
- CommentTimeJun 7th 2009
I'm trying to train for my first marathon so I'm also trying to find a cadence that I slip into naturally when I'm v.tired so I can predict my race pace, by keeping my stride length up. I will just have to dream of doing a full out sprint like the big boys do, for hours instead of seconds!

I looked up a few beat analysers when I read what drchele said and found http://www.beatunes.com/ which is shareware but worked fine. Analyzed my most of my library in iTunes (didn't do about 20 protected songs), gave them all a bpm. I could then setup a playlist which was mirrored exactly in iTunes (changes to folders etc were synchronised).

Most of the tunes are good to run with, some don't quite work out (genre of song or the beat just feeling 'wrong') but I'm using my now 260 song playlist and filtering out the ones that just don't work for me and producing another more refined list. . Much better than using the same playlist all the time.

I am sure there are any better or completely free ones out there, but this one did the job initially. It missed out some songs that I like to run to as well but it's a good start and I can always add to the playlists when it runs out of it's 'free trial'.
- CommentAuthor BrandonRodgers
- CommentTimeJun 8th 2009
Interesting read...my own running form has been through a couple of revisions that have ranged from slow, to painful, to finally efficient, smooth, and sustainable. By far the best revision to my form has been focusing on cadence and shortening my stride out the front. What I mean is that when I am in my rhythm my forward landing foot is hitting below my bent knee and I am landing on or just behind the ball of my foot--by refraining from swinging your lead foot too far forward it becomes easily possible to get your cadence in the magic 90's as you are not battling the natural forward movement of your body. Shorten your stride out the front, land fleet-footed with a bent knee and focus on just picking your foot up out the back of your stride. As you get used to the quicker turnover you will find it is much more comfortable than a stride that is long out the front.

At first you will likely feel as if you are going slower than you are used to...take heart though, as you adjust you will find that you will tend to 'stretch it out' at the end of your stride...you will kick farther and your stride will open up out the back, which is the correct place to open it up. You will learn to incorporate a slight forward lean into your stride (a lean originating at your ankles) that will help to open up your stride even more out the back...remember its all about the kick, not the heel strike...heel strike=evil+shin problems+knee pain+lower back pain+.....

anyways, I am not an expert but I have enough reading and personal experience to recommend this...
- CommentAuthor RunningKnows
- CommentTimeJun 8th 2009
so..... I guess this brings me to something I've always wanted to know, and that some of you with a little more experience might know..... I've been trying to get my training on my stride from a book..... would it be better for me to find a coach? If so, How does a 37 yo amateur go about that?
- CommentAuthor jayyerex
- CommentTimeJun 8th 2009
Up until I read these last couple of posts on the matter I hadn't put any thought into it whatsoever. However, I did notice that after my last 10 k, the "rhythm" of my run had changed. I noticed that my stride had shortened up considerably and my footfalls had become a little less jarring. I had made no conscious effort to change anything and yet I felt that I could not comfortably go back to my original stride. Just today I went for a run and timed my cadence to 87 strikes/minute with my left foot. I shaved 8 seconds off my best 5k time. Funny that it came so naturally and without any thought.
- CommentAuthor coachduck
- CommentTimeJun 9th 2009
BrandonRodgers:
...heel strike=evil+shin problems+knee pain+lower back pain+.....

anyways, I am not an expert but I have enough reading and personal experience to recommend this...

And your math skills rock!

I tried my first cadence-focused run last week and went sub 40 for 5 miles. Previously I would have been about 42-43 on a good day. It was easier and faster. I think when you run fast (not just faster than normal) you get a faster cadence anyway, it's the idea of keeping your cadence up while going on your slow runs that is difficult. It's real easy to go too fast on those. I'm now trying to shorten my stride for the slow runs. Although, I could be going the right speed for my ability... I'm just too new to know what my training paces should be since I have no races on my soles.
- CommentAuthor jsparksh
- CommentTimeJun 23rd 2009
BrandonRogers: That was way helpful.

Chiggy: Sure everyone is different and there is going to be some naturalness to eveyrone's stride so it's important to not over do it. That said, there is going to be a range of forms that are "natural" to someone and understanding which are more efficient is helpful particularly if you haven't had much running coaching. But, point taken on not over analyzing.
- CommentAuthor offdisc
- CommentTimeJun 24th 2009
BrandonRogers: you've nailed it perfectly, from my experience.

I read Pacemaker's analysis and was immediately taken aback by the thought of heel-striking. Ouch!, to say the least. I know there are plenty of coaches who teach heel-toe running stride, especially for longer, slower runs or heavier runners. The train of thought is that we walk heel-toe, so that is the natural cadence for all movement. Wrong! When we run, we rise up a little, which pushes us onto our toes. All I have ever seen accomplished by heel-toe is years of agony later as bodies break down.

A perfect footfall always starts at the ball of the foot, rolls back to a "bounce" off the heel, and then a strong toe-off push, as BrandonRogers describes.

I was taught to "stretch it out" as well... I think most people learning in the 70s were taught the same thing. A harder toe-off, but also a higher knee lift! The knees are important!!! And to assist, you'd pump your arms higher -- fist to the shoulders (going up hills = fist to the ear!). This brought your foot quickly off the ground after the heel bounce and your landing was directly below your slightly bent knee. The forward momentum of your body would still carry it forward of your footfall, and your body still slightly (ever so slightly) leaning forward. You shorten your stride on downhills to get the least jarring, and then lengthen again on the flats.

Stride is definitely a personal issue, but it starts with the footfall, and continues to the cadence. Get off your heels! The rest will come a lot more naturally.
- CommentAuthor rpetreccajr
- CommentTimeJun 24th 2009
Offdisc - a mid-foot or fore-foot footfall may be biomechanically best and may lead to a faster cadence, better efficiency, better speed and fewer injuries, but I found from personal experience that you need to be very cautious about making such a change. I tried last summer to change from landing on my heels to landing on my toes. It was a disaster. After 2 weeks of trying a fore-foot footfall my calves were in agony and I took a couple of months off running. "Get off your heels!" sounds good, but I think it is the result of a better, more efficient running style and not the cause. At least not for an adult who has already established certain habits.
- CommentAuthor coachduck
- CommentTimeJun 24th 2009 edited
Rpet, one question -- Did you slowly work into the footfall style as you would slowly work into mileage or did you just take your current mileage and start at that level? I'm guessing the latter. As I re-read your post I see you say be very cautious about making the change. I agree to a point, but MAKE the change. Use caution the same way you use caution with adding mileage, but you still do it. Your calves were in agony because you were using them rather than your bones and joints to cushion your landing.
- CommentAuthor goddessrfl
- CommentTimeJun 25th 2009
Thanks for all the great info, everyone! I read this discussion last night and it answered a lot of questions that I have about my pace and my form. I checked my cadence today on my run and found it to be between 168 and 176. Not as high as Jack Daniels suggests but I'm not a 'professional' runner so I'm pretty happy with the results. And it did work to help keep me at a steady pace. If I felt myself slowing down, I'd check my cadence and adjust my speed. And what BrandonRogers said:

as you adjust you will find that you will tend to 'stretch it out' at the end of your stride...you will kick farther and your stride will open up out the back, which is the correct place to open it up.

was right on!! It felt great to open up my stride to the back and did increase my speed. Great run today!
- CommentAuthor rpetreccajr
- CommentTimeJun 25th 2009
Coachduck - I tried exacty four runs to get up on my toes. None longer than 3.2 miles and in none of the runs did I try running on my toes for more than a mile. The first run I tried to do on my toes I went the longest like that almost a mile. Probably too much in hindsight.
- CommentAuthor rogermoss
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
Cadence, or turnover, is an important facet of running that does require attention. I believe it becomes more important the longer the run/race, because shorter, quicker strides are more efficient than longer strides. While training for my second marathon, I put a lot of empahasis on turnover, especially on my long runs (What else is there to do while running 30k ?). The result was less tiring training runs and a faster marathon time. Don't worry about the shorter stride length, that can be worked on after the turnover is optimized. To increase the stride length while maintaining the turnover requires strength training in the form of weights or hills.
- CommentAuthor EmBeeDee
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
rpetreccajr - landing on your toes sounds wrong (unless you are sprinting). As I understand it, midfoot is the best landing zone, and should put least stress on muscles and joints. I think it's only necessary to concentrate on increasing cadence and shortening stride to achieve this. If your feet are out in front of you when they hit the ground, you'll get a heel strike, and your cadence will likely be too slow. But conversely, if you take tiny, relaxed, almost unpowered steps, your feet should naturally land underneath you, with knees slightly bent, and with the initial impact midfoot NOT toes. This should feel really easy and effortless (once you've got used to the strange effect of your legs beavering away quite rapidly but not actually requiring much energy input). Certainly shouldn't hurt!
- CommentAuthor rpetreccajr
- CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
EmBeeDee - I absolutely agree that landing on your toes sounds wrong. It feels wrong too! I talked myself into trying that as there was another dicsussion on foot strike last year and forefoot/midfoot strike seemed to be the consensus. My argument was that running on your toes is for sprinting as you said. I was (politely) shouted down so I gave it a try. Won't do that again. I was working on increasing my cadence this spring with much better results in terms of injury prevention and a 10 minute betterment in my half marathon time. Once I get over the shin splints I am recovering from now, I will continue that effort.
- CommentAuthor EmBeeDee
- CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
Ah! Yes, that sounds like a lot of nonsense repetr. :-) I agree with you and rogermoss, cadence is king. Getting the cadence right makes everything better, I reckon: slow running feels better, fast running is more efficient, and technique/footstrike naturally falls into place. Good luck with the shin splints. You are lucky to be a member of other groups doing other sports, but I hope you get back to running soon.
- CommentAuthor JPH78
- CommentTimeJul 17th 2009
Cadence should be regular. 85-90 spm per foot. Your stride length should change with intensity. If you only try to run with a high cadence and neglect your stride and the phases of your stride you will never be able to really change speeds, as you will be limited to how ever fast you can go at 110spm. Good technique should include cadence training. Landing on your heel doesn't mean you are braking. Overstriding means you are braking, and this is generally due to a biomechanical issue not technique. Leg length has no effect on cadence or stride potential. You just have to train their muscles to do the job properly.

1 to 41 of 41

Report Offensive Content