I changed from 155 to 175, over months of using the annoying beeper cadence on my garmin starting with 160, then kicking it up 5 every month or two. After 3 months at 180, I let myself form naturally from there and nowadays average 175 (so not a complete success...).

FWIW, I am 6'2" and range between 175-180 lbs. My 10k/half PRs while at 155 were 42/1:32 and I just recently hit 39:30/1:25 (can probably go faster on that 10k).

It was definitely not all attributable to the cadence, but I can't imagine I'd be able to keep up 6:30s through a half mary on 155 cadence anymore. I've tried running that again recently (just once, out of curiosity) and I felt like an awkward gazelle about to get caught by the lion. The change can't happen overnight, hardly even during one off-season, but when it does change, you notice it.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

It took me about 9 months to transition from 160-ish SPM to 180s. It just takes a foodpod and concentration on every run. Then it snaps to natural.

Are you faster?

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

Yes. Net was faster at same HR and less knee fatigue from impact.

Anyone who tells you to increase your cadence doesn't know what they are talking about this. This has been debunked time and time again. Everyone has a different natural cadence which will work best for them. Cadence is a result of speed, the faster you run the faster your cadence will be. My easy runs are usually around 160, and my 10k pace is around 175. As long as you are not overstriding, don't worry about it and just run!

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

It's pretty to think that we all naturally fall into our optimal cadence. People love to make empty assertions that such is the case because it appeals to their natural biases and it's one less thing to worry about. But the fact is, it is simply not in evidence.

Okay then, show me research that this isn't the case! Most people with low cadences are running slow, and the "180 rule" was observed when watching elites run at low 4 min pace. Your cadence will likely increase naturally over time as you become a better runner and most importantly you will become more efficient at any given speed, but changing it by force is just stupid. The best way to improve running form and efficiency is strides and 200m sprints, and of course by running more.
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/report-the-impact-of-running-cadence-on-running-economy-ecor-and-re/

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Completely different experience for me. No slow forced effort to change cadence by measuring it or listening to a metronome. That sounds like a terrible idea to me. I find it counter intuitive that a slow build in cadence would be a good idea.
I had big knee problems, frequent back ache and a fairly low cadence. My knees forced me to stop running and every time I tried starting again, I got bad knee pain almost immediately again. So after a few tries starting back gradually and stretching, doing core work, etc... I decided I wasn't getting to the heart of the problem. My running form was not good. I was pretty sure I was over-striding, and I was definitely heel striking whenever I was not sprinting.

So I tried one more time, but this time I put on shoes with no heel-toe drop and I consciously took really short strides. Even though this felt silly for the first couple of runs. I'd go out walk a few minutes to warm up, then run just a few hundred meters, concentrating on keeping my strides short and ignoring pace, walk a few more minutes and then run a little more. That way I was re-setting myself for each run, not just falling back into old habits after a few minutes. Initially I concentrated on picking my feet up as soon as they were behind me, and that seemed to help me improve my posture and turnover.
I should mention the shoes were pretty minimal (Merrell Trail Gloves) and I think that helped me but I think the lack of drop was more important in my case. Out of curiousity I've tried going back to conventional shoes once or twice but they just feel all wrong, horrible and clumsy. However a little cushioning doesn't seem to do any harm so long as the sole stays pretty flat.

If I really try hard, I can still run the way I used to. But it feels awful and is no longer natural. I switched to a much shorter stride and higher turnover. My knees are no longer a problem, and I've had no injury issues to speak of in the last 5 or 6 years since making that change.

I'm not sure what my cadence was before, but I'd guess around 160. Now I typically cruise at 179-185 and have fallen into that cadence range right from the first run when I switched.

I think you'll have a natural cadence for your existing run technique. If you want to raise your cadence it should probably be because you want to change your gait. Cadence is not an independent variable. Raising it gradually makes no sense to me as a gradual change in running style seems doomed to always drift back to where you were and if it's a dramatic change like mine, it's simply not something you can transition incrementally.

 
Hello

I'm 6 feet, 170 lb (at best, 177 in winter), 52 years old, new to regular running.
Personnally, I noticed that if I take care of striking below my center of gravity (not forward my CoG), at same speed, there is several impacts, already observed and mentioned many times by most of Slowtwitchers (including Dan Empfield, it was funny to read yesterday in 2013 article about Hoka what I discovered by myself few months ago) :

1) my cadence increase significantly (kind of 165 to 180). This is logical as even if I push well at toe off, my stride is shorter (from reducing the part of the stride in front of my CoG to zero)
2) my foot strike goes from heel strike to mid-foot strike, so I prefer good forefoot cushioning (moved to 18mm to 24mm forefoot, and less drop, from Brooks to Clifton 5)
3) less problems with knee and ankle and back, less pronation problems. Now mid foot striking, the Vaporfly 4% become usable for me despite its strong lack of medial support at heel and just in front of heel. I would just prefer have it with less drop, 25mm/30mm would be great. In fact, no more running problems :-)

So, increasing the cadence was more of a consequence than a cause, when I tried to make my gait more efficient and confutable : heel striking in front of CoG being inefficient (basically braking at each step...)
and very unconfortable for the skeleton, except with considerable cushioning... this is the reason why VF 4% is so efficient for heel strikers, as per the 2017 University of Colorodo study shown (the origin of the 4%...), increasing leg stiffness for free due to less knee angle, due to excellent cushion.

Quick clarification to my above transition comment. It took me 9 months to get to a state in which ~180 became my new natural norm. But, I did not get there by gradually adding a SPM or two each month. The change was immediate and total... I just started concentrating on new form and faster cadence and constantly checked my watch during workouts. It took 9 months of that for it to become my natural default.

Per the science/research...

1) aim to land with foot close to center of mass

2) avoid "stomping" the ground to reduce rate of tissue loading

A lot of folks miss this....partially why injury rates of runners remains fairly high to date (not to mention training errors)

If you're interested in the specifics, look up the research of Brian Heiderscheit, Irene Davis and/or Jay Dicharry.

---

CB
Physical Therapist/Endurance Coach
http://www.cadencept.net

If increasing turnover was the be all, end all to running fast, then we could reach our potentials pretty quick and be done with it.

The short answer is, yes it is important. Does it have to be 90/180 for YOU or everyone for that matter? No. Cadence in many ways is an OUTCOME, not an independent variable. When our form is perfect, then cadence can become a variable to be concerned with. Cadence is a product of our efficiency in running, not the cause. In fact, having a range of cadences during running is very typical for ANY runner depending on the terrain.

To explain why it is important though, there are some biomechanical basics to know before you know WHY you would even consider increasing cadence in the first place.

Our biomechanics for running is quite special compared to other forms of locomotion. We are effectively springs/ pogo sticks bouncing along the ground in a specific direction. Our muscles and tendons have elastic qualities that basically store energy from our landing on the ground as the muscles lengthen, add our own energy, and then be released into forward motion if timed correctly. But it's not all about cadence, but rather coordination. Fortunately, we do have some control over how we program our muscles to contract.

The idea of increasing turnover has more to do with economy in effectively using the force you produce on to the ground to produce a NET movement forward with maximum coordination of muscles, posture and balance; rather than allowing that force that was produced to otherwise be "lost" (or absorbed), or generally speaking into a direction that is not forward. If you are on the ground for a longer period of time (as with a slower cadence) you are literally wasting stored energy as well as exerting force for a period of time that you are not moving forward (lets say, up and down vs. gravity). In contrast, too fast and it may mean less energy wasted vs. gravity, but may go into various lateral (side to side) movements thwarting forward progress.

Unfortunately, YOUR cadence has a lot to do with your own strength, power(the time it takes to contract muscles and move forces over a specified distance), coordination, height to body weight ratio, body fat percent, etc. not just how fast you move your legs from step to step.

Running drills help with timing and coordination of muscles. If you don't have coordination to produce force at the right time then recover for the next contraction, cadence means nothing.

Your focus should be to become economical via drills. Aside from endurance and fatigue factors, 99 times out of 100, there is probably something more fundamentally "wrong" to your form affecting your ability to produce force and/or have increased turnover (and pace) before the actual turnover rate becomes a "wrong" aspect of you overall running. This is why running drills are sooooooo important. They help you train how you should move during each part of the leg phases, correctly, in order to have an economical turnover.

Generally, I've had the most success with training my runners with running drill practice and some basic body weight exercises before every run. Rather than focusing on cadence during the run, focus specifically on posture, smoothing out your run (like you have a glass of water on your head, or being more "quiet"), and identify "stiff limbs" that should otherwise feel free as it becomes needed (usually as a result of thinking about turnover rate). If you focus too hard on much more it does indeed ruin your run, in more ways than one.

Cadence and fitness will take care of itself if you focus on the movement aspects of running to improve your form with drills (aside from appropriate volume of endurance and speed workouts).

Otherwise you are just practicing bad form faster.

Best

---

Matt Leu, M.S. Kinesiology
San Pedro Fit Works, Los Angeles, CA
Endurance Athlete and Coach
Consistency/time=results

BC. Heiderscheit, ES. Chumanov, MP. Michalski, CM. Wille, MB. Ryan, Effects of step rate manipulation on joint mechanics during running., Med Sci Sports Exerc, volume 43, issue 2, pages 296-302, Feb 2011, doi 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ebedf4, PMID 20581720

JA. Mercer, P. Devita, TR. Derrick, BT. Bates, Individual effects of stride length and frequency on shock attenuation during running., Med Sci Sports Exerc, volume 35, issue 2, pages 307-13, Feb 2003, doi 10.1249/01.MSS.0000048837.81430.E7, PMID 12569221

TE. Clarke, LB. Cooper, CL. Hamill, DE. Clark, The effect of varied stride rate upon shank deceleration in running., J Sports Sci, volume 3, issue 1, pages 41-9, 1985, doi 10.1080/02640418508729731, PMID 4094019

D. E. Lieberman, A. G. Warrener, J. Wang, E. R. Castillo, Effects of stride frequency and foot position at landing on braking force, hip torque, impact peak force and the metabolic cost of running in humans, Journal of Experimental Biology, volume 218, issue 21, 2015, pages 3406–3414, ISSN 0022-0949, doi 10.1242/jeb.125500

I could continue for a while.

Don't let sources like these scare you everyone. Upon actually reading them, all of these articles listed boost my previous post about how although cadence is an indicator of efficiency (within a self selected range, save for one study T.E. Clarke), focusing on mechanics and drills and generally less on cadence is a good idea:


1.
This article is in reference to joint loading and various cadence at a single speed, flat on a treadmill, with regard to treating and preventing injury. It does not discuss how to run faster or more efficiently, in fact it points out that less distance is covered with a faster turnover and increased number of impacts for the subjects: “Despite the clear reduction in the magnitude of knee joint loading when step rate is increased, the corresponding increase in the number of steps required for a given distance (i.e. loading cycles) may offset any potential benefit to injury reduction.” The study was limited to sagittal kinematics and kinetics, so we have no reference how lateral forces affected joints during the study. Good for possible injury reduction and treatment, maybe.

2.
“Conclusion: It was concluded that changes in stride length not stride frequency affected shock attenuation.” The study manipulated stride length and frequency relative to each participants self selected cadence and stride length, so 1 point for self selection. Again, nothing on how modifying cadence specifically makes you a better runner besides reducing impact. The article goes on: “However, the shorter stride length would also have the effect of increasing the number of impacts over a given running distance due to a greater stride frequency if velocity is maintained. In contrast, if stride length were increased, the number of impacts during running a given distance (velocity maintained) would decrease but impact energy would increase. Increasing stride length would seem to have the effect of increasing the energy-absorbing role of muscle. Given this understanding of the relationship between stride length and shock attenuation, there may be some benefit to prescribing changes in running style (i.e., stride length and frequency) for certain runners. However, the choice of specific stride length and frequency combination a runner selects is based on many factors. For example, Hamill et al. (10) showed that runners optimize running style on oxygen consumption not shock attenuation. Small changes in stride length, however, may not have a detrimental effect on oxygen consumption (1,10) but may have a substantial effect on shock attenuation.” In short, it explains that your mechanics and overall fitness play a large role in how we select our cadence, not how cadence determines our mechanics and fitness.

3.
1985? Ok: “Application of the findings to existing analytical models indicated that, for a given running speed, peak impact forces in the ankle and knee joints decreased as stride rate increased.” Which means this study is old enough to provide the basis of the future studies listed above, confirmed the laws of physics and showing modern human kinematics with kinetics in its infancy. Nothing on becoming a better runner as it relates to specifically adjusting your cadence, just getting the ball rolling on how we understand running efficiency. Also I don’t plan on paying $42 for the whole article so a full review of methods makes this a tough sell, because I doubt you purchased this one too.

4.
Ok now it gets interesting. This is a very comprehensive study on stride length, frequency, mechanics and metabolic costs. We have a “ideal” stride length (from only n=14 fit, experienced runners, mostly male and run more than 30k/18mi per week): “84.8±3.6 strides min”, all of this was done at a little under a 9 minute mile pace. So between 80 and 88ish (which depended on the individual runner's current ability anyway), not 90; “91-93” was mentioned for elite runners in the lit review, but a 9 min mile is a far cry from a 4 or 5 min/ mile, only to be separated by 7 strides per minute. The article goes on, in detail, about the kinematics (hip, knee, ankle, foot angles during running) in relation to forces used for braking and leg swinging, all around the optimal frequency determined by this study: about 85 spm (again not 90, 91-93…). This article if anything, confirms everything I mentioned in my previous post; this article states that the optimal cadence (~85, not 90) reduces metabolic costs (increase efficiency). They provide insight into what to focus on in training: the mechanics of how the foot lands on the ground relative to the hip, knee and ankle angles (hello, running drills!), not necessarily increasing cadence. They even mention limitations: “In addition, this study tested only experienced, fit runners, but the ability to adjust kinematics, and hence cost, may be affected by fitness, experience, strength and other factors that affect internal and external work as well as elastic energy storage. Future studies would benefit from using a wider range of speeds, studying participants with a broader range of experience and skill, and considering additional variables such as limb stiffness, energy lost to collision, as well as variations in trunk lean, strike type and differences in footwear." Many of these topics were mentioned in my previous post.

The moral of the story is: yes stride frequency is important, but not enough to make it your golden ticket to being a better runner. Focus on mechanics (drills), not entirely on stride rate. Nothing out there that specifically measure cadence as an input factor; Yes, it is a manipulable factor, but in then end it is more or less a result of how our bodies modify many factors to adjust for the controlled factor (cadence), which in turn may or may not result in better running performance. Rather it is an output based on many other criteria of our mechanics and fitness, and willingness to change and adapt them.

---

Matt Leu, M.S. Kinesiology
San Pedro Fit Works, Los Angeles, CA
Endurance Athlete and Coach
Consistency/time=results

I'm no expert but I second this.
My long runs are in the 160s my faster runs are in the 170s

Thank you.

I guess Matt say :

if you work seriously on your stride/gait/posture, you will end up most probably with an optimized cadence
if you just try to modify cadence, it might not help your stride/gait

Personally, suppressing my overstriding, and working on posture (Chi running like), I went from heel strike to midfootstrike, and indeed :
at 9min/mile my cadence is around 90
at 10.5 min/mile cadence is around 85 (I'm not fast and rather old)

Which is supported by the studies above and is, also, common sense. Also, by achieving said result, you're applying the same principle as in cycling and sparing your fuel. Fuel economy and efficiency is key in endurance running.

It is very difficult to prove a negative, so the real solution is to prove a positive. It is incumbent on the scientists to prove that a specific cadence is right for all, and that has not been done. People are different, and have different optimum cadences, speeds and abilities. To try to fit everyone into one size, one pace, one cadence, is foolish on its face. Only when everyone is the same size, the same ability, with the same speed capability will a unitary cadence be true.

This is exactly where I was going with all this, along with @Pyrenean Wolf summary. I spent the better part of two months during my Masters program reviewing literature seeing if I could do a thesis study on cadence training. The short of it is, it is very difficult to accomplish because on a practical level there are too many other individual variables in play that you would have to control to see if it actually works as a training mechanism. Not to mention finding application to the real world after controlling all those factors. Cadence is an output metric; it is something we can generally control, but may or may not elicit a positive outcome. However, focusing on the mechanics directly will more than likely elicit a positive outcome, including an individual's cadence. Thats why cadence is a slightly varying range for each individual, not a set metric. Cadence is important as an indicator of individual performance/efficiency, not something you plug in to your run and boom, you have better run mechanics.

---

Matt Leu, M.S. Kinesiology
San Pedro Fit Works, Los Angeles, CA
Endurance Athlete and Coach
Consistency/time=results

Focusing on a shorter stride is also something that I did. It seems elementary that cadence X stride length = velocity. When going from one pace to another, either cadence or stride length or both have to increase. It also seems elementary that "overstriding" is hard on your joints and inefficient -- that heel strike with the leg extended creates a big force that your body has to absorb and it is decelerating your body. It also seems apparent that the shorter the stride, the easier it is to move your foot strike forward (e.g., from hell to mid-foot, etc.). I also understand that the stress on the knees goes up by a non-linear function (exponential, or something) by the vertical momentum by which I hit the ground, so if I can keep my vertical oscillations lower linearly proportional with shorter strides (I know, that's a big if), then I have more impacts but the aggregate impact to my knees is less.

Anyway, I spent a few weeks just focusing on shorter strides. I did not measure them, I just went by feel as to what would be a shorter stride than I was used to taking. It really didn't take long to make the change. My Garmin now tells me that my cadence increases and decreases with pace, but at fast or slow pace, I believe my stride is shorter than it would have been had I not forced my self to learn to take shorter strides, and so my cadence is faster.

I know I am an N = 1. I know that it is not possible to know what my running durability would have been had I not increased my cadence. But I do feel strongly that my cadence change made my knees a lot happier.