I’m looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low (maybe 160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I’ve spent more time on the treadmill working on increasing this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site that has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.
Almost every running coach will advise the novice and improving runner to get cadence up to 180. J. Daniels devotes a few pages to it in his book. He says that elite runners have generally self-selected their own optimal cadence, but that most everybody else ought to pick theirs up to 180 as a starting point.
After fits and starts, I hit on the fail-safe way to groove your cadence at 180. Buy a small electronic metronome at a music store. Should be under $30. Get one with headphone jack and wear your walkman/mp3 player headphones on runs. Set the metronome to click at 180 beats per minute. I did that cold-turkey. No building up; just went out and started running at 180. For a week, I couldn’t hardly run a mile at a time. My HR would keep spiking and I’d have to walk for a bit. Within 3 weeks, I was doing 1 hour runs in rolling terrain. I even did some 1+ hour runs at 184 just to see what it felt like.
I wore the metronome on every run for about 6 weeks, and then gradually weaned off of it. I stopped running with it about 3 months ago, and the 180 cadence now feels perfectly normal and natural.
I didn’t get faster, but I got smoother and more comfortable and am handling longer tougher runs than before.
Although I can’t give you an expert opinion or any good data - here’s my 2 cents:
Was running at about a cadence of 165-170 (although I usually count 1 foot so I’d say cadence of 82-85) - am trying to lift it up to 180+ (90+). I also am going the metronome route - increasing 2 (1) every 2 weeks (as opposed to Julian’s cold turkey approach). I just started at 178 (89). I figure a slower increase is easier on the body/heart and I could keep running my regular runs without my HR jumping…
I’m not even sure where I got this idea - read things here and there about how most good runners run cadences for one foot of 88-95 (or there abouts). Quick/light feet sounds good to me - minimizes overstriding maybe? Faster feet = faster running (assuming stride is the same). I also read that you cadence should be roughly the same regardless of speed so slow running = short stride and faster running = longer stride. I’m going to try and build mine to about 92 I think - but not sure…I also run my long slow runs at a cadence 2 slower (one foot cadence = 87) then build my cadence back up to normal for that week (currently =89) for the last 30 minutes. I do this cuz its easier to keep my heart rate lower for the long run - plus Gordo said something about it in a reply to a ?. I do remember something about calf stretch and reflexes at cadences of around 90 but can’t remember details…
No science - no good data (that I know of - but haven’t really looked) but I feel like my form/stride is better. Will I be faster? I’m changing a bunch of things at once so will never know…but I feel faster…
Thanks. I haven’t had any trouble maintaining HR @ the aerobic level. Also, as long as I do a count every 10 minutes or so it hasn’t been a problem keeping the cadence up (shortening my stride). More than anything else I’m looking for some data on why this should be a better way to run vs using longer strides at a slower cadence. I’m not really finding anywhere on the web that discusses the issue.
Most people will self select their optimal rate. That being said small strides/quicker turnover is usually more economical than long loping strides.
It is all pretty much crap this talk about optimal cadence in running. Find the optimal technique and the cadence takes care of itself.
So if those advising of cadence regimes can not provide you with advise on optimal technique then forget it/them.
I only know of one coach in triathlon coach (Tony Benson in Australia - www.benson.com.au) that can help with run technique to a satisfying level. He incidently has assisted close to 50 African coaches regarding run technique and is directly linked to the run technique used by world champions this year.
That is not to say there are not any others out there - but I’ve read a lot on other coaches and there technique advice - whilst not injurious - is certainly not desirable.
If you trust and have confidence in your coach you would not be here asking for advice - you would just do as she or he says.
I gotta disagree with some of this. What if you don’t have a coach? People automatically run at their optimal cadence??? Where does that come from? Maybe people swim with their optimal cadence/form too (from birth)- or bike or…? Lance was born spinning where he does…I believe that as far as gross generalizations go this one is as true as any: everyone can benefit from working on form in all disciplines at all levels. You can address this many different ways - cadence is critical in all sports of triathlon.
Maybe if you run at the right cadence - it will take care of your form…many people overstride - hard to do that at a cadence of 90.
I think for many of us - working on cadence helps our form a lot and is an easy way to address certain problems. Maybe a big-time running coach could do the same, but I’ll take my $20 metronome for now.
People automatically run at their optimal cadence??? Where does that come from?<<<<
Heinert, LD et al. Effect of stride length variation on oxygen uptake during level and positive grade treadmill running. Res. Q. Exer. Sport, 59:127, 1988
First, I’d like to say that I have absolutely no data that increasing one’s run cadence to/above 90 does anything what-so-ever…I don’t even know if it’ll make me faster or less injury prone (I felt I was an over-strider)…
Desert Dude - can you summarize how the study was done and what the study found? My guess is the following:
Take runners - put them on a treadmill - measure oxygen uptake at a given speed while varying cadence/stride rate. Results: Each runner had an optimal cadence - above or below this - the oxygen uptake increased and the further away from their optimal cadence/stride length - the more their oxygen uptake increased??? Optimal cadence varied from 80-90. Number of participants was small. They concluded that runners have different optimal cadences. Was that cadence different on the hills (I’m curious about that one). Am I close (if I am - the study doesn’t answer the question at all). Let me know.
What they’d have to do to find out: Take a bunch of runners - randomly divide them in 2 groups. They all run the same mileage every day. One works on increasing their cadence to 90 - one just runs without regard to cadence. Take times before and after and compare. Has this been done?
Why do almost all elites run at high cadences? Could it be that their coaches taught them to? Maybe a cadence like theirs isn’t the best for someone as slow as I…maybe 10 minute milers and 5 minute milers should run different cadences…maybe we shouldn’t all try to be like Lance Armstrong…
"I gotta disagree with some of this. What if you don’t have a coach? People automatically run at their optimal cadence??? Where does that come from? Maybe people swim with their optimal cadence/form too (from birth)- or bike or…? Lance was born spinning where he does…I believe that as far as gross generalizations go this one is as true as any: everyone can benefit from working on form in all disciplines at all levels. You can address this many different ways - cadence is critical in all sports of triathlon.
Maybe if you run at the right cadence - it will take care of your form…many people overstride - hard to do that at a cadence of 90.
I think for many of us - working on cadence helps our form a lot and is an easy way to address certain problems. Maybe a big-time running coach could do the same, but I’ll take my $20 metronome for now. <<"
The athlete was advised by a coach - which is why I worded my post the way it is. You can certainly achieve improvements through other means - there are many ways to skin a cat - but it is a fact that a taxidermist will only do it one way. So an expert running coach will only instruct with precise accuracy to achieve desired result. An expert running coach is not expensive. But certainly not as cheap as your metronome - minor problem is athletes should not run with a metronomic stride pattern. Running at optimum cadence is more common than not. Do you think thousands of Kenyans and Etheopian runners could tell you their cadence - I watch kids running and their cadence is fine - except the fat kids? Many age group athletes will struggle to run correctly if they are overweight (very common) or are new to running as they ‘try’ too much to run a certain way instead of doing what is natural - perhaps due to a period of inactivity they have lost what is natural. Swimming and cycling and running cadences are not comparable items. Of course a human is not born with ability to pedal at 90rpm’s. And it is quite clear than swimming cadence is more individual than the other two - with two females swimming ~same times, one with a 52-52stroke count/50m and the other with 33 stroke count/50m. Jan, Lance, Tyler, Millar etc are all within 10rpms of each other during a TT. Running at the right cadence will not take care of your form - it may assist in reducing severe problems, but the right cadence will come after the form is right - it does not lead to it. Run technique is the hardest to teach and learn once an athlete loses or never had a naturally sound technique. Swimming and cycling technique is much easier. I would suggest though that yourself and others who do not wish to consult and expert do their best to work on their technique - and if you find you are having success and satisfied then enjoy.
uh oh, this is starting to smell like the weight training thread.
My own anecdotal evidence (FWIW). Through years of running, including Div I CC and track, attempting to be a “wannbe” elite, and all the training involved, I’ve trained with some pretty fast people. 13 min 5k guys up to mid teen marathoners. We have obviously discussed many training topics through various runs and can honestly say I can never remember talking about turnover. I can tell you personally that my stide my naturally shortened over the years in order to allow me to run as faster. Basically, it was the way my body adapted in an attempt to keep up with people faster. I don’t know specific numbers regarding cadence and never really considered quantifying cadence. However, with my progression in cycling it is evident there is a “optimal” or “most efficient” cycling cadence so it is at least plausible to me that running may be the same.
When I talk to MOPers looking for advice, I will tell them that in my opinion quicker turnover is usually better. However, everybody is different and trying to “change” may result in an injury. My kids run in summer track where we live and I have to control myself every time I hear “coaches” trying to change up kids stides (usually trying to make them overstride when they may already be overstriding). The old myth that longer strides are always better is alive and well, which is unfortunate.
As I recall, the old adage that fired up the “longer stride is better” bandwagon was: If you increase each stride by six inches, your 400m time drops by 30 seconds. Okay, I could be off on those numbers, I don’t remember them exactly, but it was some short stride increase and some resultingly great time decrease. The catch, as daveinmammoth pointed out earlier, is that your cadence must be maintained, in order for that effect to hold true.
From the opposite perspective (and similarly to biking) higher cadence is better, but only as long as you’re in the right gear. In other words, yes, everyone has as personal a cadence as they do physiology, but there is an optimum (leg length and strength have a LOT to do with it) and it’s usually pretty high. Under similar circumstances to JeffJ (DIII instead of DI), I came to the same conclusion, that as I grew faster, my stride didn’t really change, but my cadence did. It was a more rapid foot-fall that allowed me to break some plateaus. Long story, but it was a comment about almost chopping your stride and concentrating on turnover in the last 100m of an 800m that got me thinking that, if it’s more efficient in the last 100m, why not over the whole distance? Obviously, that’s a much different pace than in a tri, but the concept transfers pretty well.
dave et al
While I’m no longer a student of exer phys (under grad degree and 15hrs grad school) there are numerous studies looking at stride length and running economy. They all find the same thing. That the most economical stride length for a runner is the one that he/she self selects. When shorting or lengthing from self selected stride length Cavanaugh found 8-12% increase in O2 consumption. (1) McArdle, Katch & Katch in Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition and Human Performance 3rd ed, stated that for well trained runners letting them run at the stride length they have selected over years is the most efficient.
It is smarter to understride than overstride. If I get time today I’ll look up the study quoted in the previous post, if not the info is there for all to find.
I believe dan has some info regarding this exact debate on the site somewhere.
Cavanagh and Kram: stride length in distance running: Velocity, body dimensions and added mass effects. Med Sci. Ports Exer., 21:467 1989
Thanks to all. Desert Dude, thanks for the reference. Here’s a URL to some good material (refers to the study that Desert Dude mentioned):