How to increase run cadence at a reasonable pace?

Triathlon Forum
1

This year I’m following a BarryP style plan for running. One of his recommendations is to increase run cadence to the ~180 steps per minute range. When I concentrate on this (and still usually only manage ~175) I always end up running much faster than I want/intend to. For example today I concentrated on cadence for two miles and ended up about two minutes quicker than planned, even though I felt like I was taking tiny bird steps.

Is there any way around this? Or should cadence work only be done in conjunction with speed work?

2

98% of people self select the most economical cadence for themselves when running.

I’d worry less about my cadence unless it was unusually low.

Cadence and stride length increase as velocity increases and decrease as velocity decrease.

To run at 180 spm no matter what is a fools errand.

you could use a tempo trainer if you wanted to increase cadence

3

Hold your arms like you’re a T-Rex (acute angle at the elbow as opposed to 90 degrees). Swing them as you would normally, and or exaggerate the frequency slightly. Your opposite leg will follow…it’s the physics, no joke. Don’t dance too hard when you see your SPMs suddenly jump by 8 or more.

4

98% of people self select the most economical cadence for themselves when running.

I’d worry less about my cadence unless it was unusually low.

Cadence and stride length increase as velocity increases and decrease as velocity decrease.

To run at 180 spm no matter what is a fools errand.

you could use a tempo trainer if you wanted to increase cadence

Thank you, that’s kind of what I was thinking. Nice to hear it from someone that knows something.

5

When you increase cadence, shorten your stride. I practiced this on a treadmill one time. Set the speed and simply shorten your stride…your cadence will increase (or you’ll fall off the back.)

6

To run at 180 spm no matter what is a fools errand.

+1

Shame on BarryP for perpetuating this myth.

7

This year I’m following a BarryP style plan for running. One of his recommendations is to increase run cadence to the ~180 steps per minute range. When I concentrate on this (and still usually only manage ~175) I always end up running much faster than I want/intend to. For example today I concentrated on cadence for two miles and ended up about two minutes quicker than planned, even though I felt like I was taking tiny bird steps.

Is there any way around this? Or should cadence work only be done in conjunction with speed work?

I can’t remember where the research is, but I remember recently seeing research saying that people run using a cadence, etc. that is most natural to them and if you try to change it to get to what is considered optimal, more often than not it causes you to expend more energy. Unless your running form is extremely inefficient, I would use what feels natural and normal for you.

8

I made a conscious effort to change my running style 6 years ago due to my existing technique being pretty poor and resulting in knee problems and often some back pain. I was (and still am) a slow runner, and I was (but am no longer) a severe over-strider.
After a long break from running due to knee pain, I got some minimalist shoes (the original Merrell Trail Gloves). My aim was to improve form rather than specifically increasing cadence but one resulted in the other. The Merrells had zero drop and virtually zero cushioning, essentially just a thin strip of rubber between foot and pavement. That meant a heel strike would hurt and doing it on every stride was simply not an option. To run in these I was forced to shorten my stride considerably. My cadence went up as a consequence. My pace and corresponding HR stayed very similar.

For me it was a step change based on how and where my feet were landing, not a gradual increase in cadence driven by cadence numbers.

Pace = cadence * stride length

A higher cadence for the same pace demands a proportionally lower stride length. I would question the validity of raising cadence for cadence sake. However, if you overstride and want to deal with that, shorter strides and corresponding higher cadence is the way to address it. Concentrate on NOT stretching your foot out ahead of you or you’ll speed up. Instead think about making contact with the ground beneath you and picking up your feet quickly behind you. I found I had TWO natural cadence ranges. One very slow which caused problems (never measured it but was probably in the 150-160spm range). The other, much faster, which I now find far more comfortable than I ever was with my original running style (I settle at around 180-185spm for an easy run and 190-196 for a fast 5km). My cadence has hardly changed since the first run with minimalist shoes when the new style “clicked”.

I think the idea that you self select your ideal cadence is probably valid for those who have run continuously since childhood. I think those who start, or resume, running as adults can adopt poor habits without realising it and they don’t always sort themselves out naturally.

So, in summary: Don’t try and increase your cadence. If you need to shorten your stride, focus on that and the cadence will take care of itself. Don’t try and make a gradual change. It’s likely a different style that will accomplish any real changes and I think it’s unlikely you can transition smoothly between the two. Keep the distances short initially.

9

This year I’m following a BarryP style plan for running. One of his recommendations is to increase run cadence to the ~180 steps per minute range. When I concentrate on this (and still usually only manage ~175) I always end up running much faster than I want/intend to. For example today I concentrated on cadence for two miles and ended up about two minutes quicker than planned, even though I felt like I was taking tiny bird steps.

Is there any way around this? Or should cadence work only be done in conjunction with speed work?

Echoing the others, trying to change your running form in a non organic way is likely to result in injury rather than any benefit.

People confuse cause and effect on this issue. Anyone running at a pace of 3:00-3:30/km will have a lightning fast turnover. Most people just can’t hold these paces for very long. The easy/recovery pace of elite runners might be comparable to your open 10k race pace if you are not a strong runner.

Do the traditional running drills like strides, hill sprints/bounding drills, high knee drills, heel lift drills etc a few times per week in tandem with your easy runs. The improvements in form, strength and speed will come naturally through this process.

I recently saw an Arthur Lydiard video where he criticised people trying to coach a long natural stride out of distance runners to force an increase in cadence, instead he advocated focusing on turning it into a strength by building speed, as ultimately fast running combines stride length with high turnover.

10

I can’t remember where the research is, but I remember recently seeing research saying that people run using a cadence, etc. that is most natural to them and if you try to change it to get to what is considered optimal, more often than not it causes you to expend more energy. Unless your running form is extremely inefficient, I would use what feels natural and normal for you.

I think this is what a lot of people (and coaches?) are trying to say with the 180 spm recommendation, not that they’re advocating at running exactly 180 spm in all and every situation.

I see a lot of people out-and-about with absolutely awful running gaits. Only a couple of days ago some guy stomped past me, running about 120 spm with something like a 2m stride length; I nearly burst out laughing right in the middle of the street! For people like this, or the vast population of amateur runners that are overstriding, working towards a higher cadence and a shorter stride length could certainly be beneficial.

Whenever I see the 180 spm recommendation I take it to mean a broad range around 180 depending on your speed, not an absolute value to be adhered to at all costs.

11

Research has shown that 1) the “vast majority” of amateur runners are not overstriders, but instead have self-selected the stride length/rate that is optimal for them, and 2) the human eye is generally a poor tool for evaluating running biomechanics.

12

It’s already been said. Pace = Cadence + Stride Length

An athlete I work with came to me with no running background and very ugly form. I put him on a program of basics. Drills and Strides daily. We didn’t talk about head position, arm swing or cadence. I mentioned them but said the Drills and Strides will get you to your optimal. It took an entire year of doing this. We turned a non-runner into a runner. In August of last year his Pace was at a plateau and his cadence had reached 180. We began working on Stride length with the same methods, drills and strides (different drills). His pace increased dramatically overnight.

So I would tell you this: Don’t worry about your cadence. It’s a result. Your goal should be perfect form and quick feet. You do this through drills and strides. I was teaching this to a 2018 Kona qualifier who wanted to run faster off the bike. His training partner a really good runner doesn’t do drills and strides and he asked why? I told him it’s because his training partner ran in high school and college and had 8 solid years of drills and strides every day. It’s baked into him now. That Kona qualifier is getting faster right now by stepping back to basics. I’m guessing BarryP has drills and strides in his program. Here’s a great video on the subject https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aR2MyqYs1pA

13

Some more info:
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html

Some of the self selecting is influenced by the speed being run. You kind of found that out yourself. Do some faster running (strides) to work on that aspect.

14

It’s already been said. Pace = Cadence + Stride Length
Pace = cadence * stride length

Pace = 1000 / (Cadence * Stride length in m) minutes per km

15

Research has shown that 1) the “vast majority” of amateur runners are not overstriders, but instead have self-selected the stride length/rate that is optimal for them, and 2) the human eye is generally a poor tool for evaluating running biomechanics.

Let me switch sports:

Research has shown that 1) the “vast majority” of amateur swimmers do not take big diggers, but instead have self-selected the kick pattern/rate that is optimal for them, and 2) the human eye is generally a poor tool for evaluating swimming biomechanics.

Now if you said that to a coach on-deck they’d say your nuts.

I see running as no different. Cadence first, but also build length (eg. long stride walking, drills etc)

16

Research has shown that 1) the “vast majority” of amateur runners are not overstriders, but instead have self-selected the stride length/rate that is optimal for them, and 2) the human eye is generally a poor tool for evaluating running biomechanics.

Let me switch sports:

Research has shown that 1) the “vast majority” of amateur swimmers do not take big diggers, but instead have self-selected the kick pattern/rate that is optimal for them, and 2) the human eye is generally a poor tool for evaluating swimming biomechanics.

Now if you said that to a coach on-deck they’d say your nuts.

  1. Swimming is not running. One is something that humans have adapted to do via eons of upright, bipedal locomotion; the other is something that people choose to do as a sport.

  2. My understanding is that, at least among enlightened swim coaches, less emphasis is being placed these days on attempting to force swimmers to adopt a particular motion, instead bowing to the powerful influence of self-optimization.

  3. That said, coaches (even highly successful one) say all sorts of sh*t that is incorrect.

17

Speaking of running, stride rate/length, and self-optimization:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421982/
.

18

Research has shown that 1) the “vast majority” of amateur runners are not overstriders, but instead have self-selected the stride length/rate that is optimal for them, and 2) the human eye is generally a poor tool for evaluating running biomechanics.

Let me switch sports:

Research has shown that 1) the “vast majority” of amateur swimmers do not take big diggers, but instead have self-selected the kick pattern/rate that is optimal for them, and 2) the human eye is generally a poor tool for evaluating swimming biomechanics.

Now if you said that to a coach on-deck they’d say your nuts.

I see running as no different. Cadence first, but also build length (eg. long stride walking, drills etc)

This is definitely an incorrect (albeit reasonable sounding) extrapolation.

Humans were innately evolved SPECIFICALLY for optimal running. We are better at long (ultralong) distance running than any animal on the planet, with special adaptations - no hair for cooling, near-unique achilles tendon (most mammals lack this), weight centered in the head where it won’t interfere with running, and a brain that allows us to hunt long-distance and long term by tracking over hours/days.

It’s been well studied and documented in top science journals that the foremost experts agree upon - humans have a brain and body specifically adapted to running long.

This is NOT true for swimming, which is why swimming require so much technique work. Any running coach who is trying to use the swimming training methodology to alter one’s distance running form will almost certainly make things worse, as your body/brain will choose the optimal stride and cadence for your build AND ability. The faster you go, the more Kenyanlike you’ll look.

Bottom line - it’s a big error to use the technical training example of swimming and apply to running. Similarly, it’s a big mistake to tell newb AOS swimmers to ‘just swim with zero technique training like you do in running’ as your brain won’t naturally pick the optimal stroke pattern.

19

To be a bit more clear.

The first runner in my example. We capped his HR at 150 which equates to MAF. We did not change his effort. His pace hit a plateau so we worked to increase his stride length. Today at the exact same effort and cadence he is running 1 min/kilometer faster than he was in August. I will also add that we increased his mileage during the same time. He was running 35K/week in August and by December he was running 65K. (He wanted to be running 100K but I backed him off that ledge)

20

To run at 180 spm no matter what is a fools errand.

+1

Shame on BarryP for perpetuating this myth.

Crap my normal daily runs I’m at 185 SPM average. 10k race at 196 SPM average.
Wonder if increasing my stride length will make me run faster.