Why do you have cadence in quotes?
http://web.mac.com/...iles/mecheffMSSE.pdf
Interesting article. Too bad alot has changed in swimming technique since 1990.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8SEJpvZSOY
Watch video number 2 as well.
If anyone is still interested, Joe Friel in the Triathlete’s Training Bible does a nice job explaining efficiency, stroke rate, stroke length and cadence. It starts on page 207 thru 214.
I think he’s a disciple of Terry Laughlin, as well as POSE.
If anyone is still interested, Joe Friel in the Triathlete’s Training Bible does a nice job explaining efficiency, stroke rate, stroke length and cadence. It starts on page 207 thru 214.
in general, following friel does a great disservice to yourself.
The overwhelming majority of people would be better off not worrying about these two things when heading out the door. 95+% of people will self select the cadence and stride length that is most economical for them no matter how fast or slow they run.
Deja vu all over again:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2533509
I’m still puzzled why you seem to be so against Daniels’ thoughts in this area. Is your concern that there weren’t studies to back up his writing?
I guess what you’re saying might be valid if we assumed that 95+% of people were “experienced” runners.
To be clear, I’m not trying to call you out - a lot of your advice is great, so I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from on this subject. To re-read that thread (wow, two years goes by fast), you implied that I wasn’t understanding his take on this - I still don’t think that’s the case but would be happy to be set straight.
you always hear about riding in high cadence and how it is preferred…
what about swimming and running? for example, in running, one can do a lot more, smaller, steps…
why do you not hear about that ? (at least i haven’t)
i assume we each run in step sizes that feel comfortable, but perhaps we should
strive and train for higher cadence in both running and swimming… any research/info on that?
Note: my main focus is for long distances
Do a search on the forums for Gerry Rodrigues. Very experienced and effective competitor and coach in OWS and long distance swimming, and he advocates a high turnover rate. He’s got some excellent posts on the subject from a debate a year or so ago (IIRC), and answering other questions on here.
John
My bad, I was wrong. Excellent bike and run splits. It would be a pleasure and and honor to race against you at Nationals in Burlington next year. Hope you are able to attend!!!
Nice redirect. Maybe you can measure each others’ genitalia while you are at it.
John
You know, I don’t see anything in there talking about stroke length.
Toussaint’s work is pretty sweet in many regards, but I don’t see what you want me to see here. Maybe I’m slow.
But on the other hand, work showing improved performance at lower stroke counts is not unknown. Unfortunately being biomechanics work, almost none of it is longitudinal.
These guys found lower strokes counts at a given speed to correlate well with performance. http://www.swimmingcoach.org/publications/JSRVol172007.pdf (It’s toward the back of the paper).
There’s more around that looks at the stroke index, velocity x stroke length. Don’t have any of those at my fingertips.
You’re talking about the paper by d’Acquisto? It’s funny because I discussed the paper with him. I was a faculty member at the school here he is until mid 2010.
Anyhow, you may want to read the top of page 37, because what you say is not what Leo says…
Actually, I’d read page 37 entirely, in particular the top part of the ‘practical’ section, and how this work should be used by coaches…
Actually, I’d read page 37 entirely, in particular the top part of the ‘practical’ section, and how this work should be used by coaches…
wait…you can read?!?
Huh…
John
Wait to see your training next week, jerk.
You know, I don’t see anything in there talking about stroke length.
Toussaint’s work is pretty sweet in many regards, but I don’t see what you want me to see here. Maybe I’m slow.
But on the other hand, work showing improved performance at lower stroke counts is not unknown. Unfortunately being biomechanics work, almost none of it is longitudinal.
These guys found lower strokes counts at a given speed to correlate well with performance. http://www.swimmingcoach.org/...ons/JSRVol172007.pdf (It’s toward the back of the paper).
There’s more around that looks at the stroke index, velocity x stroke length. Don’t have any of those at my fingertips.
Timely article on Gerry Rodrigues in LAVA mag.
http://www.lavamagazine-digital.com/lavamagazine/20111011?pg=134#pg134
Some of the more interesting parts start on page 136.
John
Agreed physics has not changed. In this article it talks about the movement of water in the opposite direction is waist. I would agree. This is why technique is so important and has a big impact on distance per stroke and efficiency. That being said, you can have the best underwater technique but fail to have the strength or conditioning to perform for extended duration. A higher turnover rate with a less efficient pull can compensate by using a more cardio approach rather than using strength, not unlike the difference in cycling cadence. The most efficient swimmers waist very little, move very little water backward by applying force using a slight scull motion throughout the stroke. This motion allows the hand and forearm to always push against still water and the path that the arm takes is considerably longer than a straight through pull. IMO the most efficient method for you is based on all the things you should consider, do you have the strength and conditioning and skill to handle a slower cadence or rely more on a cardio effort this time and work toward more efficiency over time.
.
I’m still puzzled why you seem to be so against Daniels’ thoughts in this area. Is your concern that there weren’t studies to back up his writing?
I’m not against his thoughts. But I am against people taking his findings from race speed and applying those to themselves when they are out jogging along at 8:30 per mile.
Someone running 8:30 is going to have a slower turnover and shorter stride then when they are running 7:00 per mile.
Since you naturally increase both as you get faster, & since 95% of people self select the best cadence for themselves (which can change as they change velocities) I think asking people to go out and focus on a particular number across all velocities is kind of ridiculous.
At 8:30 pace he is going to be stutter stepping while at 7:00 pace he could be inhibiting his ability to go faster.
thank god someone finally said this!!
I have been reading all the literature, emailed with bobby mcgee…“your cadence should be 180 or greater weather your doing 100m sprint or a marathon”…but no one ever addresses what it should be for JOGGING…slower than marathon pace. You do an IM your going slower than IM pace. I’ve tried running 180cadence for 9:30-10min pace (I’m 6’2), it gives me a stride length of maybe 3 inches…seriously. My wife running the same pace and cadence has a longer stride length (she’s 5’4")
What cadence does ryan hall run at when he’s jogging? It may be worth while to have your cadence up there for marathon pace and faster, but for going slower I’m not sure how much your mechanics get screwed up trying to keep it at 180. I just ran a half and for the last 5 miles I ran with a firend and we were doing 9:30 pace or slower. I tried to keep my cadence up and I have never been so sore after a run as I was for that
Funny you mention that. I always feel like I am putting a lot more stress on my lower legs when trying to keep a high cadence when running really easy. I am of the believe that you will self select your cadence. Definitely when you get to the end of a hard run and your are suffering. I swear I hurt my calf last year by trying to keep my cadence up when jogging.
I know that I remember reading a statistic that said something to the effect of…
The cadence of elite runners only varied by about 5% over a range that was roughly double the speed.
So, if they had a cadence of 95 steps per minute at a 5 minute mile, they would have a cadence of roughly 90 or so at 10 minutes per mile or so. But, that’s just what I ‘remember’ and of course don’t know where I saw that…could have been in the training bible or something!
Alex Hutchinson at the Sweat Science blog has had some interesting posts about running cadence in the last few weeks. Here’s one of them:
http://sweatscience.com/the-problem-with-180-strides-per-minute-some-personal-data/