Is the “optimal” 180 steps per minute running cadence/turnover something that is optimal for the mid-packer to back of pack IM triathlete?
The reason I ask… is because after running for about 25 yrs… I have decided to change my typical turnover from what I feel is an “optimal” 150-160 turnover rate to the theoretical 180 pace… Not sure this is helping my efficiency of effort relative to performance - yet. Anyone gone from a slightly slower pace to higher pace and got positive incrementally and significantly valuable results? In effect, Is the 30-20 extra steps per minute worth the difference (especially for the IM run portion)?
I think the main benefit from running 180, is that higher turnover = shorter stride = your legs get beat up less, meaning a smaller chance for injury. If you Ironman shuffle or death march at 150-160 without getting injured, then go for it. Personally, I would shoot for the highest turnover / shortest stride where I’m efficient. That might be 150 for some runners, or 200 for others.
Not an IM athlete but this is quite the debate. Some say your body automatically picks the best cadence for it and that this comes with experience. Others are in a camp where they say altering stride rate and cadence can get your body working more efficiently.
In my experience at the olympic distance it is better for me to trick my body at the beginning of the run with a higher cadence and shorter stride, once the blood starts flowing again(my former coach had a big fancy word for this) my stride rate basically falls where it needs to. I do not think it helps save you legs or remove damage done to them, running is running. I’d just do what is comfortable.
I agree that someone should run how they feel most comfortable. Run tall and let the rest take care of itself. Most everyone will have a higher turnover as they run faster, especially in a race. By the way, who started this 90 stride per min. stuff anyway?
It’s interesting to note that Jeremy Warriner won Olympic gold at 180spm in the 400m. And Haile Geb set the marathon world record at 190spm. So, at least at the elite level (and acknowledging those are only two data points, but I believe there are quite a lot actually in the 180-190 range), there seems to be a consensus.
My own understanding of the argument for the 180-190spm stride rate is that at that 180spm is roughly where you start to benefit from elastic recoil or your muscles AND TENDONS. Basically, you start to get some “free” speed at the higher cadence as a result of the stretch/contraction of muscles and - I think more importantly, tendons - at higher frequency. A quick search didn’t reveal anything conclusive, but this is what I have heard proposed by those who advocate 180spm as a minimum cadence for virtually ALL running…
I agree that someone should run how they feel most comfortable. Run tall and let the rest take care of itself. Most everyone will have a higher turnover as they run faster, especially in a race. By the way, who started this 90 stride per min. stuff anyway?
Jack Daniels enlisted his wife and the two of them spent hours manually checking stride rates at one of the Olympic games. The surprising result was that a large majority of runners for pretty much all distances from from I believe 800meters upward ran at very close to180 strides per minute.
If you don’t know who J.D. is there is always Google.
I think the main benefit from running 180, is that higher turnover = shorter stride = your legs get beat up less, meaning a smaller chance for injury. If you Ironman shuffle or death march at 150-160 without getting injured, then go for it. Personally, I would shoot for the highest turnover / shortest stride where I’m efficient. That might be 150 for some runners, or 200 for others.
This. I think to say that 180 is what is needed for everyone is a bit too generalized. I realize that there are optimal turnover rates that are observed in elites and top level AG folks, but to take that and apply it to everyone isn’t always the best.
I agree with Nickwhite’s thoughts that the best cadence for a runner is the one at which they are most efficient; if that is 180 great. As for the OP question of all distances?
I have discovered with myself that I do better if I maintain my most efficient cadence at all races, otherwise I will end up overstriding and wrecking my shins (i.e. 5K vs. half).
So this 180 stuff is based on elite runners? That 's my point. The faster you go the higher the turnover. I would assume Olympic runners are pretty fast at any distance. Am familiar with Jack Daniels. Take a shot at him every chance I get!
Is it the change in cadence that changes the speed you can run at?
The main reason most people have decided this is the best cadence to be fast is because of the study revealing the cadence of faster runners. So they assumed (incorrectly IMO) if I want to run fast I need to up my cadence. They need to go back another step and find out what types of training are consistent among these athletes that are faster and have higher cadences. I’m sure they didn’t just change their run cadence and suddenly become 29min 10k runners.
Basically, the Daniels 180 was a verrry basic observation. Kind of like 220 - age for max heart rate. In general, I’ve never seen experienced runners use the same cadence at slow and fast speeds, but I see a lot of inexperienced runners (and cyclists) with low cadence.
After reading your link (Mikerh)… maybe the title to my original post should have been…
180 running cadence/turnover - valid for all body types…specially above and below average height
“…what about simple math. If you run at 180steps/min and run a 5min mile your stride length is almost 6 '. If you run 180steps/min at a 9min pace your stride length is a bit over 3 feet. Thats tiny steps (I’m 6’2”) that is in no way optimal for me. Obviously, any runner is going to increase cadence to compensate for increasing stride length as speed increases. you have too or you end up taking giant leaps"
Perhaps someone can explain this simple concept vs. a 180 turnover.
I think one of the terms that throws off our thinking is that “stride length” is the distance you travel over the ground per step, and it doesn’t necessarily mean changing the angles of your hip/knee/ankle joints. Its easiest to relate this back to your bike, where (when seated) the angles are all fixed and you can put out 90 rpm with a 42x17 and go 17mph, or go 90 rpm with 53x12 and go 30 mph but with substantially more power output. Skilled runners do the same, they don’t take bigger steps in the sense that they change their joint angles that much, but it is that they apply more force on the step and fly through the air further.
If you watch an elite 10K track race, their form is not that much different from the early to later lap for those in contention. There’s another article out there that analyzed the stride rate and length of the top 3 of a recent world championship’s 10K, comparing the last two laps. One runner increased their rate, another their length, but the winner (Bekele) was able to increase both. But nobody looks like they are leaping.
Most people within an average height range probably gravitate toward the 180 cadence when they become skilled. I’m 6’ and you’re 6’2’', and that extra height difference was all from your legs and we both ran with the same exact joint angles, your “step” would be a little longer and you could go at a slightly lower cadence and go the same speed. But I think that as we speed up, force output starts to hit it’s limit but we can go faster with the same force by increasing cadence. Going back to the bike, at easy speeds I’m doing 85-90 rpm, at threshold 90-95, and doing VO2 max interval speeds I have to do 95-105 in bigger gears to not feel “bogged” down.
I would say we are within a normal height ranges. But I have also seen a dwarf woman finish the run of a triathlon. I didn’t measure her cadence, but from appearance her leg speed didn’t seem that much off of mine. She just would be never able to run my modest speed unless she could put out a much larger force per step, which here limb and muscle strength would not likely permit.
So, I don’t know if I’ve made anything clearer for anybody. But maybe it’s helpful to think that skilled runners don’t change their crank length and the only “gear” they have is the distance they travel per step, which they control with force. I’m not a researcher, just going by observation and personal experience.
I’ve been a runner most of my life including D3 college (34 yo) and run about 160 cadence or a hair more. I’m a hair under 6’.
Keep in mind most elite runners are TINY. Therefore they have to turnover faster to go fast. It’s much like swimming. A guy like Phelps with mega wingspan can turnover much slower than an elite woman that is very small.
So for me I can simply look at someone and tell if they are over or under striding. I feel MOST very young athletes overstride and most older athletes understride. That’s simply an observation of mine from over the years. I think most young kids feel they must run with a long powerful stride and the older folks are simply running out of power and flexibility.
This is a great post and deserved a bump. I think correlating stride length, cadence, and speed gets muddied frequently because people forget to take into account that running involves traveling through the air.
I just started this 180 cadence thing a year and a half ago, and I’m really digging it…I feel faster, fewer injuries, etc. I’m still struggling to get quite to 180…I’m more like 170-175…but like I said, so far, so good.
Interesting observation from the weekend: I’ve haven’t really done many running races in the past, but I did a 10 miler on Sunday. Given that the 180 thing has gotten so much attention over the past couple years, I thought everyone…well at least, all the cool kids ;)…we’re doing it. But, I was really surprised that pretty much everyone around me in the race was running much slower cadences. In fact, I only saw a couple of other people that were anywhere close to 180. (I was only doing around 7:20 minute miles, so maybe that explains it. Perhaps all the 180 cadence people were up the road ahead of me.
Have other people noticed this…how few people run 180? Or do I just need to get faster to see these people in a race?
