I'm curious too. Honestly, I can't maintain close to 180 going easy.

your cadence shouldn't be dependent on pace. your stride length will determine pace while maintaining cadence. the more ground you cover per stride will determine how fast you are running. while many sources say that 180 is the perfect cadence, it is also very individual. my cadence is usually somewhere between 189-191. I have done everything I can to slow that rate and just can't figure out how. so now I accept that I take a few more steps and really try and concentrate on heal kick and launch with each stride.

That's the theory.

Personally I find that my cadence goes up slightly during intervals (from ~158 on a recovery run to ~163 doing 400s). My natural cadence is on the low side (same is true on the bike). I've played with running at 180 and found that my HR at any given speed really didn't change (i.e. no change in efficiency) even after an adaptation period.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

I'm pretty sure that they measured a bunch of professional runners and elite-level runners and found that they typically, and naturally, run at a cadence around 180. Then, someone gets the idea that if it's what the top dogs do, then the runts of the litter should try and copy it. IMO- it's an errant conclusion. There's a very high probability that you don't have anywhere near the level of fitness, base miles, or efficiency that they have. You'd be better off completely ignoring your cadence numbers and focus on just running, enjoy the scenery, etc. Once or twice a week, go hard. Your body will naturally select it's own, personal best cadence (which may evolve over time) without you counting steps and doing some math.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

I get the idea, and often try to consciously up my cadence, but on an easy run?

A 9 minute mile with a 180 cadence feels like tiny little strides. Is that the goal? Put another way, if I try to bring my cadence up on an easy run I end up running faster than I had planned. I seem to have to choose between doing most runs at "too low" a cadence or doing every run at or below 8 minute miles. Hmph!

I have a lower cadence when I'm doing a really easy pace, like right after an interval or during cooldown. As far as I understand it, the high cadence develops over years and miles of running. Supposedly, it's more mechanically efficient, but that's if it develops naturally. They say that forcing yourself to smile more makes you happier...so interpret that how you like.

On the other hand, if you imagine the forces on your joints for 1 minute at 5min/mile pace. One time you do that at a cadence of 150 and the other time at a cadence of 180. You're going to be loading your joints, tendons, and ligaments less with each stride, thus lowering the risk of stress injuries. It's the same rationale for regulated the cranks for junior cyclists, so that the forces are lower in their knees to prevent injuries while they're still growing.

---

Dtyrrell

Generally everyone is quoting the Jack Daniels study on cadence. Generally they are misquoting. He found that elite runners run at 180 OR MORE. The idea of 180 being some magical number that suits everybody is silly. Just look at any elite running race, and there will be a variety of cadences. Same as in cycling. Same as in swimming.

So if you're running above 180 then don't think that slowing your cadence is going to somehow cause an increase in stride length that will make you faster.

If you're running at <180 then exploring a higher cadence is probably worth doing at some point.

I have a few thoughts based on my personal experience over the past year. I have read the same advice as you, that 180 is ideal and to try to maintain the same cadence whether going easy or hard. (As an aside, my friend who is an elite distance runner with a marathon PR under 2:14 suggests up to 190).

I have a foot pod and my cadence last year for aerobic endurance runs was around 166 and for race pace workouts around 174. This winter I made a conscious effort to increase my cadence. With that, every run workout from December to February had a cadence focus. I would either (1) run with a moderate comfortable cadence and then increase to a high cadence (190+) for a minute or two every few minutes or (2) try to maintain a high cadence (180+) throughout the entire run. All of this was very uncomfortable at first and at times I felt like I was taking baby steps during my runs (I am 6'5"), but after a couple of months it became more natural. At the time I developed the ability to run quite slowly (8:30) at a relatively high cadence (180+) especially when on a treadmill. (That really felt like baby steps).

I did lose my focus on cadence over the past few months after getting a horrible case of Vertigo in late February which resulted in a week of missed running followed by several additional weeks of slight dizziness during my run workouts. Even still, my cadence is now improved by about 8 steps per minute.

My run times this year have improved dramatically. Through last year my best recent 5K time (during a 5K road race) was 20:00 and had been stagnant for a couple of years. At the Duathlon Nationals in June my two 5K's were in the 19:10 - 19:15 range so much faster and as part of a duathlon race. I will add that I have lost about 8 pounds since last year so cadence is likely not the sole cause of the improvement.

Based on this experience, my views are:
1) It pays to increase your cadence to 180 or higher (I think that even slightly higher is better).
2) The benefits are increased if you can increase you cadence on slow runs as well. It may not be possible to reach equal cadence, but a smaller difference between the two is better.
3) Work on cadence really needs to happen in the offseason. It takes a month or two for the body to get used to a higher cadence. I am no longer focusing on cadence in my workouts but plan to work on cadence again this next offseason.

I was struggle with shin splint for several years, seem like I'm over-striding. So I decided bought a foot pod and found out that my cadence avg is 162-164 on moderate run, 170-172 on track and my stride length is 1.09M (based on garmin 910xt).

Here's my question is:

Am I over-striding based on my stride length measured?
What is normal average # for stride length ?
Which is more important on cadence or stride length that I need to focus on it?

I've had the chance to run with some of the runners of the XC team at UTEP when I lived in El Paso. Most are from Kenya. At low speed (and when they warm up, they go really slow), the stride frequency is definitely below 180spm. What doesn't change though is how 'bouncy' their strides are. But stride frequency is way lower at 8min/mi than at 6min/mi or 5.30mi or...well I was gone then so I don't know ;-)

I had the same lower leg problems (shin splints, calf pain, etc). Couldn't run for more than a couple of weeks before I'd pick up an injury that would stop me running. I reached the same conclusion as you and bought a foot pod. I pushed my cadence up to 180 which felt like I was shuffling, and started to try running again. That was 18 months ago. I've built up to consistently running 50+km a week, all without any lower leg injury that has stopped me running. I attribute that solely to my increased cadence. I hold 180 plus whether I'm running a recovery run or a hard run, though in harder runs my cadence goes up to 190-200 naturally (I never think about it anymore). During my IM I maintained a cadence of over 180 (though didn't look at it once during the race, just afterwards). I never even consider stride length. It's a function of how fast I'm running and my cadence. I don't see how it's relevant. It will be what it will be. I guess I could look at Garmin Connect and find out, but I never have!