As some of you know from an earlier thread, I’ve returned to running after a long absence and neck surgery. Thanks again for the great advice on easing back into it. So far, so good. I am up to about a 20 minute run with little discomfort. I’ve noticed, however, that my run cadence tends to be average right at 160. Most of what I’ve read suggests that 180 is optimal both from an efficiency and an injury-prevention standpoint, but I don’t seem to be able to up the cadence without really upping the pace. And even when trying, I find myself quickly falling back into a 160 cadence without even realizing it.
I don’t run with music, but am willing to try one of those apps that gives you 180 bpm songs to help you increase your cadence – if it’s really worth doing. What’s not clear to me is whether it’s really worth it, or if the take home lesson is that you shouldn’t have really slow turnover, and that anything within shouting distance of 180 is fine (kind of like how a lot of bike studies suggest that although 90-100 may be optimal but others suggest that your natural cadence is the way to go, assuming it’s not absurdly low). Is this something I should focus on? Or should I just keep putting one foot in front of the other as fast as seems natural? Any and all thoughts appreciated.
One thing I have heard that helps is running hills. I run lots of hills, which force high cadence. Seems to just carry over into my running naturally now.
Personally I wouldn’t worry about it. As you get up the mileage and pace, you can then consider upping the cadence. Just take a bunch of baby steps. Even though I’ve been running for decades, I’m still around 170 when taking it easy and ease up to 180 for long runs. Races I’m around 185 so it really does depend on pace for me.
As some of you know from an earlier thread, I’ve returned to running after a long absence and neck surgery. Thanks again for the great advice on easing back into it. So far, so good. I am up to about a 20 minute run with little discomfort. I’ve noticed, however, that my run cadence tends to be average right at 160. Most of what I’ve read suggests that 180 is optimal both from an efficiency and an injury-prevention standpoint, but I don’t seem to be able to up the cadence without really upping the pace. And even when trying, I find myself quickly falling back into a 160 cadence without even realizing it.
I don’t run with music, but am willing to try one of those apps that gives you 180 bpm songs to help you increase your cadence – if it’s really worth doing. What’s not clear to me is whether it’s really worth it, or if the take home lesson is that you shouldn’t have really slow turnover, and that anything within shouting distance of 180 is fine (kind of like how a lot of bike studies suggest that although 90-100 may be optimal but others suggest that your natural cadence is the way to go, assuming it’s not absurdly low). Is this something I should focus on? Or should I just keep putting one foot in front of the other as fast as seems natural? Any and all thoughts appreciated.
Shorten your stride. It’s going to feel like you are taking mini steps; yet it will help you to up your tempo. Once you hit 90 or more, your stride can lengthen as long as you keep to 90.
I like to exhale on every third step. Breathing quickly sends oxygen that you could use to run at a higher tempo.
Get used to going 90 plus on the bike. Spin. If you can’t hit 90 or more easily on the bike, you are in too big a gear or you lack leg speed.
PS When you say 160, I translate that to 80 steps with one leg and you want to hit 180 and that would be 90 with one leg to me.
What’s your average run pace? Running at 160spm at 9-10min/mi for a taller runner is a lot different than running 160spm at <7:00min/mi for a shorter runner.
As some of you know from an earlier thread, I’ve returned to running after a long absence and neck surgery. Thanks again for the great advice on easing back into it. So far, so good. I am up to about a 20 minute run with little discomfort. I’ve noticed, however, that my run cadence tends to be average right at 160. Most of what I’ve read suggests that 180 is optimal both from an efficiency and an injury-prevention standpoint, but I don’t seem to be able to up the cadence without really upping the pace. And even when trying, I find myself quickly falling back into a 160 cadence without even realizing it.
I don’t run with music, but am willing to try one of those apps that gives you 180 bpm songs to help you increase your cadence – if it’s really worth doing. What’s not clear to me is whether it’s really worth it, or if the take home lesson is that you shouldn’t have really slow turnover, and that anything within shouting distance of 180 is fine (kind of like how a lot of bike studies suggest that although 90-100 may be optimal but others suggest that your natural cadence is the way to go, assuming it’s not absurdly low). Is this something I should focus on? Or should I just keep putting one foot in front of the other as fast as seems natural? Any and all thoughts appreciated.
Thanks!
If you’re running at a slow easy pace, as you should be at this point, then your cadence will likely be lower than 180 and that’s fine. At very slow speeds you can throw the 180 number out the window. As long as the 160 isn’t the result of overstriding then you’re fine.
I run at 180 for easy → mod-hard training runs.
190 for any race distance from 10km → Marathon.
I started out by just doing it. I used to train too hard and fast so simply began to train with a capped HR (145) and an increased cadence from 170 → 180.
This was very slow at first but I experienced gains for 4 months. By the end of it I was averaging 4:20/km @ 145 HR for an hour.
What’s your average run pace? Running at 160spm at 9-10min/mi for a taller runner is a lot different than running 160spm at <7:00min/mi for a shorter runner.
Thanks, all! To answer Nick’s question, I’ve been tending to run about 8:30 min/mi, although my cadence hasn’t changed notably when I’ve been somewhat faster (7:30ish) or somewhat slower (9:00ish). I’m about 5’9".
I’ve found that as I shorten my stride, running faster ‘seems’ a bit easier - and it seems to aid in injury prevention. I averaged about 6:15/mi for an Olympic in September and I did pay close attention to my stride rate - I was right in the 180-184 spm range. For me, that is about as fast as I’ll turn my legs over, I’m probably closer to 165-170 spm on my easy days.
Just like cycling cadence drills, focusing on stride while running is great. As others have mentioned, hill sprints are good, but I am a huge fan of 6-10 x 15-20" or 100m strides at the end of easy runs.
I cannot think of fast runner I have seen with slow cadence.
That’s because running speed is calculated by Stride Length x Stride Frequency. At some some point of time, your stride length simply can’t get any longer and you have to increase the rate. For most experienced runners, the brain does an excellent job at producing the optimal combination of those 2 factors.
Even at my running threshold pace of 5:40min/mi, I’m only at 176spm and only reach 180spm at <5:10min/mi. Should I increase my cadence to the arbitrary 180spm at all speeds? No. That would decrease my efficiency via understriding.
What’s your average run pace? Running at 160spm at 9-10min/mi for a taller runner is a lot different than running 160spm at <7:00min/mi for a shorter runner.
Thanks, all! To answer Nick’s question, I’ve been tending to run about 8:30 min/mi, although my cadence hasn’t changed notably when I’ve been somewhat faster (7:30ish) or somewhat slower (9:00ish). I’m about 5’9".
I cannot think of fast runner I have seen with slow cadence.
And when was the last time you went and counted the cadence of a fast runner during an LSD type workout?
That’s because running speed is calculated by Stride Length x Stride Frequency. At some some point of time, your stride length simply can’t get any longer and you have to increase the rate. For most experienced runners, the brain does an excellent job at producing the optimal combination of those 2 factors.
Even at my running threshold pace of 5:40min/mi, I’m only at 176spm and only reach 180spm at <5:10min/mi. Should I increase my cadence to the arbitrary 180spm at all speeds? No. That would decrease my efficiency via understriding.
This. There is nothing “magic” about 180. Should your average weekend warrior be at 180spm doing 10 minute miles? Ridiculous. As your pace increases, so will your spm. No need to artificially force it.
I cannot think of fast runner I have seen with slow cadence.
.
That is because high cadence is a result of running fast, it does not result in running fast.
You may be going over 30mph when you are in your 53X11 on your bike, that does not mean in order to go fast you should stay in the 53X11 combination at all times.
Over the past few years I have worked on increasing my run cadence, and found the treadmill to be a good tool for me. I started by doing intervals at 86 (per foot), then 88, then 90. In between intervals I would return back to my normal cadence. After a while I started to feel more comfortable at the higher cadence and I was able to slowly eliminate the recover times all together until I was just running at 180 every run.
Get a video of yourself running from the side. If your knee is above your heel at weight loading and your head doesn’t bob up and down too much, don’t worry about it.
As long as the 160 isn’t the result of **overstriding **then you’re fine.
180 is just an average of what the pros run. Some are quicker, some slower…but they all run fast. The only thing that really matters is that you aren’t overstriding. When people bring their cadence up, overstriding diminishes. But if you have a good stride now, nothing needs to change.
Get a video of yourself running from the side. If your knee is above your heel at weight loading and your head doesn’t bob up and down too much, don’t worry about it.
As long as the 160 isn’t the result of **overstriding **then you’re fine.
180 is just an average of what the pros run. Some are quicker, some slower…but they all run fast. The only thing that really matters is that you aren’t overstriding. When people bring their cadence up, overstriding diminishes. But if you have a good stride now, nothing needs to change.
Thanks again to everyone. Lots of good stuff here. I will try to get a video of myself sometime soon. When you say “weight loading,” what do you mean? When I shift my weight my too my leg as it hits the ground? And what should I check for to see if I am overstriding? The same thing? (FWIW, I feel like I already am taking short steps – certainly shorter than I have historically.)
A lot of people make initial contact with the ground with their foot pretty far forward, but that doesn’t really matter. Try to pinpoint the time when it looks like you are actually putting weight down on that foot. An easy way to tell is to watch the leg muacles. Once they get all flexy, you know you are putting weight down.
For overstriding, at that point above, pause the video and check whether…
If your knee is above your heel at weight loading and your head doesn’t bob up and down too much
The point here is that your isn’t landing way out in front of you, striking the ground at an obtuse angle. This causes the ground to push back against you every step, slowing you down. You want your foot to land under your knee, at a right angle, so there is no braking force.