Run stride-rate and biking cadence

Triathlon Forum
1

Does this make sense?

If you have an inefficiency, you want to minimize the amount and/or frequency at which you repeat the inefficiency in order to be more efficient. Unless, of course, a particular inefficiency is a minor byproduct of some action that is more efficient for the specific task at hand. There are several kinds of inefficiencies taking place in a pedal stroke, some of which may be more important to eliminate than others (I suspect that the importance of elimination of specific inefficiencies may vary from subject to subject…not everyone has the same limitations/physiology.kinesiology). I think that some of the inefficiencies are more important to eliminate depending upon whether you are in a sprint effort or a time trial, or a sprint triathlon compared to an Ironman distance.

I’m also certain that NO level of current physics knowledge is sufficient to be able to put all of the nuances of a pedal stroke into a formula that works to determine efficiency for any individual, much less a group of individuals. There are too many variables which affect efficiency…blood flow, blood pressure, capillary density, hemoglobin level, glycogen level in the muscle, hormones present/absent, mental status, motivational status, previous/current training regimen, mitochondrial efficiency/numbers, oxygenation level, crankarm length, angle of the seatpost, tightness of the cycling shoe, variation from one pedal stroke to the next, etc.

From a practical point of view, it seems that the “best” running stride rate for an individual may coincide roughly with their “most efficient” cycling cadence. The faster striding runners seem to do better (meaning higher average speed for a sustainable time) with higher biking cadences, and slower striders do better with lower biking cadences. Personally, when running at my “best” sustainable speed, I have a stride rate in the lower-mid 80’s. (“Best” is defined as the point where when I slow the stride rate my speed drops, but whenn I raise the stride rate my Heart-rate rises significantly with no real increase in speed.) My best cadence on a bike seems to be slightly slower, at least for up to 1/2 ironman distances. I have no experience in Ironman distances.

I fought going to the lower cadence for a long time, thinking a higher biking cadence was better due to my road racing background. I found higher cadence worked great for road racing (I have never lost a field sprint), but I found I’m faster at lower cadences in time trials, and triathlons.

I wonder if this stride rate/bike cadence relationship is a truism across a wide range of subjects, or if I think I’m noticing something that isn’t actually true.
aka Ktalon

2

Not so sure about this one with me. I’ve found that my bike cadence varies depending on the road surface and type of course. On older gravel based asphalt I generally spin a slightly higher cadence than on smooth tarmac when I generally power about 5rpm lower. Mind you I nearly always try and match my bike cadence to my run cadence in the last 2 miles of a tri.

3

I’m very interested to see responses to this. My own experience is I come from a moderate cycling cadence (85 - 90) and moderate running cadence (mid 80’s). That was from my 30’s. I am now 47. Over the last 5 years I have worked to increase cycling cadence and am now mid 90’s and faster on the bike than ever before. Over the last 2 years I tried to adopt the Pose method of running and increase cadence to 90. My overall time slowed. So, I did the math on stride rate vs stride length. That, with being more comfortable with a slower cadence and subsequent lower HR has me now on a modified Pose technique and slower running cadence (mid 80’s). My times have improved. For me high bike cadence with slower run cadence seems to work the best.

4

I know from 15 years of screwing around with different things that I bike best at about 92 on long stuff. On pure, flat out TTs, like a 20K, I go fastest at 98-100 rpms. My “sweet spot” when climbing hills all-out seems to be about 75. I also hold pace better as I get tired by upping cadence. Perhaps that’s due to my life-long lack of anything resembling strength.

I’m in the early weeks of a running experiment – moving my steady-state cadence from 85 up to 92. A 10K in December and a half mary in January will be the final test platform. So far, I don’t think I am any faster at easy to steady paces. I’m still in “adaptation phase” and not really running hard yet. I do think that my legs are recovering faster from my runs. I pushed a long run out to the point of a 24-hour bonk earlier this week, but my legs felt oddly fresh.

The first two weeks of running at 92, it was hard to do and my HR would skyrocket. Not so now. I can hold the faster cadence at all of my old HR/pace points. It took probably 10 runs over about 50 miles to get it to sink in.

5

I agree in general with your thoughts. There are many innefficiencies in what we do both running and biking. The overall inefficiency is the sum total. Some inefficiencies are worsened by very slow running and biking cadence and others are worsened by very high running and biking cadence.

The optimum cadence for each individual in the long run will, most likely, be the one that minimizes the inefficiencies.

Unfortunately, it is not really possible to know the level of each inefficiency in any one person (without some “expert” help anyhow and even then it is probably a guess) to know which one is the one for YOU to work on for the most benefit. Therefore, you are stuck trying to work on them all, at least if you care about this stuff. It is clear to me that not all do.

6

“From a practical point of view, it seems that the “best” running stride rate for an individual may coincide roughly with their “most efficient” cycling cadence.”

i don’t think it tracks except in one instance. while in general i think a more/less race-pace (oly distance) cycling cadence of roughly 90 would more/less equal a run tempo rate of 90, that would be where the similarity stops (except to say that neophyte runners and cyclists both tend to run/ride with cadences slower than optimal).

the big difference between the two sports is in stride length, or muscle movement, range of motion, whatever you want to term it. you can vary your stride length in running, you can’t in cycling.

therefore, over a variety of effort levels in cycling your cadence will vary. 70rpm for a RAAM event, 90rpm for a 1-hour time trial, 110 rpm for a track event covering several minutes. (all of these approximations).

i believe runners ought to keep their cadences almost entirely static, at 90rpm more or less, depending on your height, etc.

one ought to modulate one’s speed in running based on stride length and associated mechanical issues, while keeping one’s cadence unchanged.

7

"i believe runners ought to keep their cadences almost entirely static, at 90rpm more or less, depending on your height, etc.

one ought to modulate one’s speed in running based on stride length and associated mechanical issues, while keeping one’s cadence unchanged. "

It is this idea precisely that I am working on in adapting my run cadence to a faster rate. I was running easy-steady at 85, and doing tempo at 90. I’ve been advised to get my system set on about 91 under all conditions. A metronome is my guide for now, and I’m doing every run of all distances at that cadence. Uphills can get a little tough with little tiny steps.

8

I don’t think there’s any hard and fast rule on this, but in tryining athletes, I’ve found that bike cadence of 95-105 is optimal for the majority, while 92-96 is best for running. There are those individuals (and I’m coaching one) who run well and comfortably with a really long stride which is, per force, slower. When we’re doing intervals, we pace side by side, and his stride rate is about 70 while mine is 96. OTOH, I kill him on the bike, because he can’t get his bike cadence up.

Last month I raced my new bike (Stealth) for the first time, and I got caught up in trying to go really fast by stomping a bigger gear. I gained about .4 mph while exhausing my legs, thus losing more on the run than I gained on the bike. Last weekend I raced again, and kept my cadence at 100+ for 95% of the race, and my run was excellent.

I find that faster cadence on the bike means better legs on the run.

I agree with Dan on two points:
More experienced athletes turn over faster
Vary your run speed with stride length, not cadence

That Dan, he one smart cookie, he agrees with me!

9

Slowman wrote: the big difference between the two sports is in stride length, or muscle movement, range of motion, whatever you want to term it. you can vary your stride length in running, you can’t in cycling.

I had to chuckle at myself for not considering this obvious difference. I guess the only way you can change the cycling movement is by varying crankarm length…and that isn’t by very much compared to the varied stride lengths that one can achieve. And you certainly can’t change the crankarm length from stroke to stroke.

Thanks for everyone’s thoughts on this. I know we are each sort of stuck experimenting to find our best stride-rates and cadences, but it helps to keep me on the right path by hearing everyone’s thoughts. I know there are many hazards of trying to formulate a general principle with what I “observe” to be a tendency, because the tendency (if it even truly exists) may not be a productive one. Thanks again.

10

When I first started reading all the training guides, the subject of cadence fascinated me. I spent about a year training myself to get both my running and cycling cadences up over 90. How has this paid off for me?

Well, one thing I learned is that when running up steep hills, increasing my cadence with smaller steps seems to let me go faster than many other people who don’t ‘shift’ but try to slog up the hills with a 36-40 inch stride and a 60-70 cadence. And keeping my cadence at around 95 has allowed my to bring my run into the mid-7’s on long course events.

On the bike, I come from a mountain bike/bmx background. so I always thought hills were for pedaling hard and slow. This year, I finally came to terms with the fact that the reason I pass a lot of people on the flats, and get passed back on the hills, was due to leg strength being my major bike limiter. My temporary solution has been to keep my cadence high and use a lower gear on the hills, rather than standing up and blowing all my strength. Based on my early and late season results, I have improved my bike speed by around 2-3 mph.

So in my case, I think that bringing my running and cycling cadences higher, has helped me all around, but I am not sure about a link between them, except to say that they are both now in the 90-95 range most of the time.