Before you go ahead and buy a metronome, check out this little site http://metronomer.com/ You generate a click track and download it as an MP3. Your iPod is your metronome.
I like to listen to the sound of my feet hitting the ground. It’s an important feedback mechanism. The iPod makes that difficult.
Check podrunner.com. Download nice long tracks at just about any tempo you should need.
Whenever someone in an authoritative position claims that 90spm is optimal and a must for all runners I question their knowledge base and ability to coach
This need to always run at 90spm is one biggest misunderstanding of run training. Right up there with the utility of Yasso 800s, the function of “active recovery” and the definition LSD.
Elites running at <5 min miles were found to have about 90spm. Why would anything think this must apply to the hobby jogger running 10 min miles is beyond me.
Whenever someone in an authoritative position claims that 90spm is optimal and a must for all runners I question their knowledge base and ability to coach
This need to always run at 90spm is one biggest misunderstanding of run training. Right up there with the utility of Yasso 800s, the function of “active recovery” and the definition LSD.
Elites running at <5 min miles were found to have a out 90spm. Why would anything think this must apply to the hobby jogger running 10 min miles is beyond me.
I’m definitely not saying that 180 spm is the number for everybody at all paces. What I do believe is that a lot of recreational runners and triathletes would benefit from running and training at a higher spm. Add 5% to your current spm (at whatever pace) and you’ll see the benefits on posture, stride length…
And no, if your current stride rate is 160, don’t try to run at 180 spm now as that will not work.
So when are they comming out with shoes with transducers in them so we can measure power while running? Then we cna all brag about how good our run economy is and then train more accurately sicne we all know HR is crap and changes too slowly. Gotta drop the VI on the run.
as Chaparral said changing (increasing) your run cadence could be good if you are needing to fix a flaw in your run stride. The bottom line is getting your center of gravity over or even slightly ahead of your foot strike. If this is a problem for you, then one means of fixing it could be increasing your cadence. Could also mean trying to land more mid foot then on your heels. But the main thing is that an increased cadence or mid foot strike isn’t always the best way to run but could be the means for fixing a stride flaw. Also look at Faris Al-Saltan, his turn over rate is in the low 70’s (right foot strikes per minute) and while he didn’t have a great run this year at Kona (3:05) he has run very well there in the past.
PS. you might appear more professional if you at least spell Triathlon right in your signature line (Triatlon?)
I obviously have no credibility when it comes to running but I never really understood the talk about having a foot strike landing under or back from your center of gravity. If you look at it from a physics standpoint where do you get any forces resulting in forward motion on flat ground without falling over completely? Not to mention all observations of elite runners clearly show they strike ahead of center of mass.
I agree overstriding is bad but I don’t quite get how the concept of striking under center of gravity has gained so much traction when no one actually does it and it’s for all practical purposes impossible to do.
I’m definitely not saying that 180 spm is the number for everybody at all paces. What I do believe is that a lot of recreational runners and triathletes would benefit from running and training at a higher spm. Add 5% to your current spm (at whatever pace) and you’ll see the benefits on posture, stride length…
And no, if your current stride rate is 160, don’t try to run at 180 spm now as that will not work.
In reality, a lot of recreational runners/ triathletes would benefit a lot more from ignoring cadence completely and simply running more. Their bodies will figure out the optimal cadence for them.
as Chaparral said changing (increasing) your run cadence could be good if you are needing to fix a flaw in your run stride. The bottom line is getting your center of gravity over or even slightly ahead of your foot strike. If this is a problem for you, then one means of fixing it could be increasing your cadence. Could also mean trying to land more mid foot then on your heels. But the main thing is that an increased cadence or mid foot strike isn’t always the best way to run but could be the means for fixing a stride flaw. Also look at Faris Al-Saltan, his turn over rate is in the low 70’s (right foot strikes per minute) and while he didn’t have a great run this year at Kona (3:05) he has run very well there in the past.
PS. you might appear more professional if you at least spell Triathlon right in your signature line (Triatlon?)
I obviously have no credibility when it comes to running but I never really understood the talk about having a foot strike landing under or back from your center of gravity. If you look at it from a physics standpoint where do you get any forces resulting in forward motion on flat ground without falling over completely? Not to mention all observations of elite runners clearly show they strike ahead of center of mass.
I agree overstriding is bad but I don’t quite get how the concept of striking under center of gravity has gained so much traction when no one actually does it and it’s for all practical purposes impossible to do.
Great point Bjorn…people should watch this video of Tergat vs. Geb at Sydney. I think people confuse the issue. Yes, you must land with your foot in front of your center of gravity, the only thing that needs to happen is knee over ball of foot, not knee behind ball of foot.
Kipsang is a smaller athlete, so his cadence will be higher than Van Lierde’s. Cadence is relative to the size. Taller you are the slightly slower your cadence can be maintained, while still minimizing ground force. I’m 5’11" and I average 90 whether I’m going 10:30 miles or 6:30 miles.
If you watch the elite marathoners as they jog, they will be running at the same cadence as their race pace (+/- 1-2 steps) - just taking ‘baby steps’.
If you’re taller than 6’ then you may or may not benefit from 90 rpms - it’s all a matter of experimentation. Bottom line is that there is a law of diminishing returns at either end (slower or faster) which each athlete needs to find.
Now when you put it together with a triathlon - if your athlete is pushing an 80 rpm’s on the bike, he’s going to have a really hard time getting his run cadence to 90 rpms. It’s all about muscle memory. If you ride at 80, you’re most likely going to at least start your run at a 80rpm (hence why some triathletes have such a hard time running off the bike if they have a normal run cadence of 90).
Drills to help increase cadence:
- Progressive rpm per week. First test out where your average cadence is for a week, then each week just add 2 steps to that equation and use your pedometer or your iphone app (Steinway is one).
- Jumping rope and running (although for most people they first have to learn how to jump rope) - this will also help with getting hips up over feet.
- Rhythmic arm swings - too many people forget that using the arms will actually help to direct the legs to move faster. Practice in front of a mirror with relaxed shoulders, and elbow bend ~90 degrees, and swing the elbows back with quick short movements. If you can’t get your elbows to move quickly, you sure as hell aren’t going to get your feet to follow.
Like the idea of tucking the chin in a bit - as it automatically can tighten the core about 20%.
as Chaparral said changing (increasing) your run cadence could be good if you are needing to fix a flaw in your run stride. The bottom line is getting your center of gravity over or even slightly ahead of your foot strike. If this is a problem for you, then one means of fixing it could be increasing your cadence. Could also mean trying to land more mid foot then on your heels. But the main thing is that an increased cadence or mid foot strike isn’t always the best way to run but could be the means for fixing a stride flaw. Also look at Faris Al-Saltan, his turn over rate is in the low 70’s (right foot strikes per minute) and while he didn’t have a great run this year at Kona (3:05) he has run very well there in the past.
PS. you might appear more professional if you at least spell Triathlon right in your signature line (Triatlon?)
I obviously have no credibility when it comes to running but I never really understood the talk about having a foot strike landing under or back from your center of gravity. If you look at it from a physics standpoint where do you get any forces resulting in forward motion on flat ground without falling over completely? Not to mention all observations of elite runners clearly show they strike ahead of center of mass.
I agree overstriding is bad but I don’t quite get how the concept of striking under center of gravity has gained so much traction when no one actually does it and it’s for all practical purposes impossible to do.
I tried landing under the center of mass while running once. I made it exactly one step before falling on my face.
Now when you put it together with a triathlon - if your athlete is pushing an 80 rpm’s on the bike, he’s going to have a really hard time getting his run cadence to 90 rpms. It’s all about muscle memory. If you ride at 80, you’re most likely going to at least start your run at a 80rpm (hence why some triathletes have such a hard time running off the bike if they have a normal run cadence of 90).
I think cadence on either the bike or run is highly personal. Your post above doesn’t even come close to matching my anecdotal evidence. I ride at 92 rpm as a preference. I can’t force my cadence over 88 to save my life.
Then this might just mean that you are at your optimal efficient cadence while running.
It’s the people who mash the gears at a lower rpm on the bike who have a harder time adjusting to a higher and more efficient cadence.
Great book to purchase is Jay Dicharry’s ‘Anatomy of a Runner’
In reality, a lot of recreational runners/ triathletes would benefit a lot more from ignoring cadence completely and simply running more. Their bodies will figure out the optimal cadence for them.
I disagree with that. That’s what I did for years and my body did not naturally figure out the optimal cadence. I bought a foot pod and started working on my cadence about a year and a half ago. It hasn’t been easy, but I’m a much better runner now with better form and I feel less beat up after long runs with a higher cadence. My easy pace before was 8:30-9:00 with a cadence of about 82-84. Now my easy runs are 7:30-8:00 with a cadence of about 88. For tempo runs my cadence is about 89-91 usually and a little faster for harder efforts. Working on my cadence isn’t the only thing that has helped my running, but I believe it has helped and it certainly didn’t happen naturally. It took some work. When my cadence is in the 88-90 range, I feel like I run faster with less effort and better form.
Now cadence is a good indicator of fatigue for me. My cadence only slips below 87 when I’m getting run down. Otherwise, 87-89 is the norm and 88-89 feels natural if I’m not really fatigued from other workouts.
Then this might just mean that you are at your optimal efficient cadence while running.
It’s the people who mash the gears at a lower rpm on the bike who have a harder time adjusting to a higher and more efficient cadence.
Great book to purchase is Jay Dicharry’s ‘Anatomy of a Runner’
Higher rpms is more efficient? Could you provide us with a primary reference?
So…
Your long runs are faster than before and Your cadence is higher when you run faster. How do you know the cadence isn’t a function of you running faster vs the converse?
I used to do some long runs at a 7:30-8:00 pace before and my cadence was always 82-84 (I used to check it from time to time and I had a foot pod for a while a few years ago but I never worked on my cadence then). My easy pace then was typically in the 8:30-9:00 range, a little faster sometimes, and my cadence was low 80s. I’ve done some slower runs in the 8:00-9:00 range this year and my cadence is still around 88 so it’s definitely higher now than it used to be. It took a focused effort to increase my cadence.
Cadence definitely isn’t the only thing that helped me improve, but I do think it helped.
It seems to make sense that stride length would increase faster than rate, at least past a certain mph. It is pretty easy to increase rate when moving slowly, but as velocity increases you are going to approach a limit and the rate increase will raise much more slowly. At that point the only real way to move faster would be to increase the length of each stride. Once you are in that 170+ rate range, just as small increase in length will make a significant difference (at least that is what all the spam emails tell me). This is why I think it is more important to increase your rate, it is easily adjustable. The length of the stride will come as you get better (stronger) at running at a higher rate.
I do find it interesting how many people here say they are at the same rate regardless of running 10:30 or 6:30 min/mi pace. On a treadmill I run at 172 at 8:00 min/mi, 174 at 7:30, and 178 at 7:04 min/mi…I get bored on the dreadmill…I count a lot. I will literally start tripping if my stride rate is too high while running at a “slow” pace. I think because after toe off, my foot barely comes off the ground before it has to start coming back, and just a little crack in the pavement can catch my foot as it comes forward. At 6’5", it just looks plain ridiculous to jog at a 180+ rate and even more ridiculous to trip while doing it.
I average 90 whether I’m going 10:30 miles or 6:30 miles.
If you watch the elite marathoners as they jog, they will be running at the same cadence as their race pace (+/- 1-2 steps) - just taking ‘baby steps’.
Bull shit.
All the published literature directly contradicts what you’ve said.
To summarize the literature:
As velocity increases both stride rate and stride length increase, length increases faster then rate.
I would be rather shocked if your stride rate stayed the exact same at 6.30 or 10.30 pace.
I will also comment that from observing many Olympians from 1500 to the marathon, a couple of Oly marathon trial qualifiers who were my training partners in the 1500 and marathon distances, a couple of top 3 finishers at last years NCAA xc meet and a college xc team as we all find ourselves on the same running path frequently what you stated is false. I’ve seen these these guys at 7:45-8 pace and I’ve seen them at sub 5. Their stride rate is much faster as velocity increases, their stride length is much shorter when they are running my pace vs blowing my doors off.
I suggest you go look up research by Cavanaugh, Kram, Heinert among others.
I had this sitting in my archives, it’s worth reading.
http://www.texastrack.com/coaching_article_5.htm
Well I run with a metronome and can run my Z1 pace at 90bpm and my Z5 at 90 bpm (5:30km’s versus 3:11 km’s give or take). It is awkward at first but really not that hard to do once you get into the swing of things. Obviously my stride length changes drastically. And I will admit that my cadence probably drifts when the metronome isn’t on, but not by much.
Brian - I know what my count is…you don’t…and with footpod access to get actual data (other than relying no my count) I’m pretty dead on from 88-92 steps per minute.
Ultimately the goal is to find the most efficient stride rate so that the stance time should be as long as possible without minimizing the effects of elastic recoil. The more time you spend in contact with the ground (say a 80rpm) the less available recoil.
I don’t know about you, but I would rather jog at a 88-90rpm than 80 rpm (this just beats the crap out of my body).
Here is an article on cadence of elites: http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2011/07/the-basics-cadence/
Bottom line is that finding the right cadence for the average athlete is through trial and error. No matter what there will be a negative response if your cadence is too high (in other words you don’t get any faster) or too low (more injuries can be sustained with longer contact with the ground).
Check out chapter in ‘Anatomy for Runners’ - Efficiency versus Speed. We’re just talking EFFICIENCY here, and energy saving. Not stride length. Stride length is a product of the lean in the athlete torso.
When you’re friends are running alongside you they have their body position in an almost or complete upright position (almost like running in place - right?) - Stride length is all about body position - how much are they leaning will determine the stride length.
Go try jumping with a rope at 90rpms, then just add the lean. Yep - your stride length increases, and you move forward. The more you lean the faster you’re going to go at that same rpm.
You really should go look at some of the latest articles on this as well. Using something that was written over 20 years ago, while a lot of it is still valid, the science in how to change and improve running biomechanics and efficiency has improved through all the new studies, force plate analysis, and video analysis. And when was the last time you used the words ‘Lift’ in helping your athletes ( “The arms help the legs in propelling the body upward, thus **providing lift **to the runner. The arms also aid in achieving a constant horizontal velocity, which could lead to a reduction in energy cost (Hinrichs). Williams (1980) reported that runners who were more economical in terms of oxygen consumption tended to use less vigorous arm swing. Theoretically arm swing should increase with running velocity. Also as a runner begins to fatigue the use of arm swing becomes more important, and helps the runner to maintain lift and drive.”) BTW - there have now been studies done on the energy costs of arm swing (of how much or how little), and bottom line results where almost none. But we both know that if you take too big of an arm swing (lifting the arm) - you’re more likely to get someone with a huge stride length/heel strike that is not efficient.