I generally don’t pay a whole lot of attention to run cadence because I naturally gravitate toward a turnover of about 180 - 190 per minute. I’ll check it occasionally just to see where I am, but that’s about it. This morning I was running at about 1/2 marathon pace and was running comfortably with a turnover of 196 - 200. This got me to thinking - at what point does turnover become too high? Is 200 approaching that level? Might I be better off trying to lengthen my stride just a tad if I get to the 200 mark?
When you start to lose an efficient form. Like on the bike when you start bouncing around then you start losing efficiency.
I generally don’t pay a whole lot of attention to run cadence because I naturally gravitate toward a turnover of about 180 - 190 per minute. I’ll check it occasionally just to see where I am, but that’s about it. This morning I was running at about 1/2 marathon pace and was running comfortably with a turnover of 196 - 200. This got me to thinking - at what point does turnover become too high? Is 200 approaching that level? Might I be better off trying to lengthen my stride just a tad if I get to the 200 mark?
Typically, cadence is reported as a complete stride with both feet so your cadence is in the 100 range, not 200. Just like in cycling, you get a cadence of 100 when a single foot makes it around 100 times a minute. Other than that, if this is how you train, this is likely how you’ll race because it’s become more efficient for you. I never pay attention to running cadence other than to vary it occasionally on longer runs to rest & recruit different muscles.
JJ
There is no “typically” with running cadence. If anything, I see it reported the other way more often. It’s not hard to understand what the person means though, however they report it. Somebody out there is hitting with the left foot 190 times per minute is something I’d like to see!
There is no “typically” with running cadence. If anything, I see it reported the other way more often. It’s not hard to understand what the person means though, however they report it.
Beg to differ, I’ve never heard cyclists claim cadence counting both feet and this is the first time I recall somebody counting both feet for running cadence and I’ve read dozens of articles on the subject. Take a poll and I’ll bet 90-95% count it the “normal” way and by anyone’s stretch of the imagination that counts as “typically”.
JJ
I’m talking about how runners refer to it, not how cyclists refer to it. I have no idea how cyclists refer to it.
I’m talking about how runners refer to it, not how cyclists refer to it. I have no idea how cyclists refer to it.
What the original poster was referring to is “stride rate” which is every time the foot hits the ground, cadence is defined as a revolutions per minute, which in running terms would generally mean a single foot going back and forth.
JJ
I wasn’t trying specifically to nail down the definition of the word “cadence”, merely to indicate how runners generally talk about it. Steps per minute or strides per minute (meaning left-right is 2, not 1) is more common. But either way, I don’t think anyone is going to have any trouble understanding what he means, do you?
For me regular fast running is about 90 strides per minute. When I start to go faster than say 5:30 miles, it starts to rise. Not a lot, but probably close to what you are describing. If it feels natural, then it isn’t really something to cause worry.
Chad
Jack Daniels talks in his book about an informal study he did of the stride rate of Olympic runners. He found that almost all tended to run somewhere around 180 steps per minute, irrespective of pace. However he occasionally observed some with higher or lower stride rates.
To the OP, I would say run how you are most comfortable. Perhaps experiment with a lower rate to see how it feels and how you perform with it. It’s the sort of thing you change only incrementally, if at all. But in the end, if 190 feels right, go with 190.
I wasn’t trying specifically to nail down the definition of the word “cadence”, merely to indicate how runners generally talk about it. Steps per minute or strides per minute (meaning left-right is 2, not 1) is more common. But either way, I don’t think anyone is going to have any trouble understanding what he means, do you?
I had no problem understanding what he meant, I was simply correcting the usage of the term cadence which is used a lot in running circles. Like you inferred, a “cadence” of 190 would be damn impressive, a stride rate of 190 is a bit quick but not out of the ordinary. This is the same as describing a circle as having a 10 foot diameter or a 10 foot radius. There’s a big difference between the two.
JJ
I had no problem understanding what he meant, I was simply correcting the usage of the term cadence which is used a lot in running circles. Like you inferred, a “cadence” of 190 would be damn impressive, a stride rate of 190 is a bit quick but not out of the ordinary. This is the same as describing a circle as having a 10 foot diameter or a 10 foot radius. There’s a big difference between the two.
Except that it is not a clear distinction like diameter vs radius. Cadence does NOT necessarily simply mean every time your left foot or right foot strikes the ground. It is not incorrect to use “cadence” and “steps per minute” synonymously.
I had no problem understanding what he meant, I was simply correcting the usage of the term cadence which is used a lot in running circles. Like you inferred, a “cadence” of 190 would be damn impressive, a stride rate of 190 is a bit quick but not out of the ordinary. This is the same as describing a circle as having a 10 foot diameter or a 10 foot radius. There’s a big difference between the two.
Except that it is not a clear distinction like diameter vs radius. Cadence does NOT necessarily simply mean every time your left foot or right foot strikes the ground. It is not incorrect to use “cadence” and “steps per minute” synonymously.
We can beat this dead horse forever but:
- Cadence is defined as revolutions per minute.
- The revolution of a foot during running is 1/2 of stride rate which is defined as every time either foot hits the ground.
- The word “typically” would mean to any logical person, that the majority of people would use and accept the term the majority of the time.
- Cadence DOES mean everytime a left foot or right foot strikes the ground.
- It IS a clear distinction like the difference between radius & diameter.
- It IS incorrect to use cadence and steps per minute/stride rate synonymously.
- It’s amazing that you are arguing to the death about a clear definition which you are clearly wrong about, and in another breath talking about “I had no problem understanding what he meant”.
JJ
Try step rate, and count me in as the 10% that reports run cadence in terms of steps/min or foot falls/minute (150-180 steps/min on average)where as cycling is reported as RPM. Cadence is a generic term and can be defined in many ways depending on the reference i.e. an event per unit of time.
To the OP; it will be a factor of your leg length, biomechanics… by most standards it seems high to me for endurance running but on the right side of error if that exsist. Not enough to know about you but most people end up with a cadence that fits there mechanics, amount of training and current run fitness. You are approaching end range regardless and improvements in performance will likley have to be from increased stride length; related closer to strength.
Cheers!
We can beat this dead horse forever but:
- Cadence is defined as revolutions per minute.
- The revolution of a foot during running is 1/2 of stride rate which is defined as every time either foot hits the ground.
- The word “typically” would mean to any logical person, that the majority of people would use and accept the term the majority of the time.
- Cadence DOES mean everytime a left foot or right foot strikes the ground.
- It IS a clear distinction like the difference between radius & diameter.
- It IS incorrect to use cadence and steps per minute/stride rate synonymously.
- It’s amazing that you are arguing to the death about a clear definition which you are clearly wrong about, and in another breath talking about “I had no problem understanding what he meant”.
JJ
I am arguing to death? What are you doing, exactly?
You say it’s a clear defintion? Show me the clear definition then. Not the one you made up now.
Here’s mine:
http://www.answers.com/topic/cadence
“The stride (or step) frequency during walking or running, i.e. the number of strides (or steps) per unit time.”
Shall we play dueling definitions? Because someone on the internet is WRONG!!! I must correct them!!!
The fact is that most definitions refer to cadence merely as a beat or a rhythm. Whether you choose to count that rhythm every footstrike or every other footstrike is up to you. There was nothing wrong with what the OP said.
I don’t know how tall you are (or if that matters), but I do think that once you’ve passed the 90/180 mark that you really should give serious thought to increasing your stride length. BUT!!! here is how you do it:
Reach back further with your legs (more hip flexion) push off harder with your toes (more ankle flexion)
Do not under any circumstances recover your foot further forward than you are now.
I am arguing to death? What are you doing, exactly?
You say it’s a clear defintion? Show me the clear definition then. Not the one you made up now.
Here’s mine:
http://www.answers.com/topic/cadence
“The stride (or step) frequency during walking or running, i.e. the number of strides (or steps) per unit time.”
Shall we play dueling definitions? Because someone on the internet is WRONG!!! I must correct them!!!
The fact is that most definitions refer to cadence merely as a beat or a rhythm. Whether you choose to count that rhythm every footstrike or every other footstrike is up to you. There was nothing wrong with what the OP said.
Wikipedia has cadence as:
Cadence in sports involving running is the total number of ‘revolutions per minute’ (RPM), or number of steps taken within a minute
Not quite sure how you can count 1/2 step as a “revolution” but have it your way.
I’ll stick with the “typically” defined way of the revolution of 1 foot. Maybe you can get slowman to do a poll on it.
JJ
Wikipedia has cadence as:
Cadence in sports involving running is the total number of ‘revolutions per minute’ (RPM), or number of steps taken within a minute
Not quite sure how you can count 1/2 step as a “revolution” but have it your way.
I’ll stick with the “typically” defined way of the revolution of 1 foot. Maybe you can get slowman to do a poll on it.
Did you even read your own post? Half of it contradicts your very point.
Cadence in sports involving running is the total number of ‘revolutions per minute’ (RPM), or number of steps taken within a minute
That’s either-or, not the same thing. So one half of it agrees with you and one half of it agrees with me. In other words, the OP said nothing wrong.
Put it this way: If you are standing still and someone tells you to take two steps forward, how many times is you left foot going to move? Once. How many times is your right foot going to move? Once? Two steps, each foot counted once.
I can’t make the point any clearer. In the interest of letting this go, the last word is yours.
It’s always been clear.
You count cadence as individual steps,
I count them as the revolution of a single foot.
We both found vague definitions that we think helps our argument.
I’m stuck on the concept of “revolution”, you’re stuck on the concept of “step”.
We agree to disagree.
JJ
It looks like I should have chosen my words more carefully! 
In any event, you know what I was getting at.