What running cadence is too fast?

Triathlon Forum
1

For a 5K in a triathlon, should someone strive to be over 200, 190?

How short or long could a step be? If someone has to run at 195 steps/min to run 6:45 to 7:00 min/mile is their step too short?

Will people just naturally select their cadence and stride length?

Does any of that matter?

Thoughts?

2

FWIW, I run 5k pace around 190. Easier runs from 170-180. I never focus on cadence, just on running faster. I do not know the “answers” to your questions though.

3

For a 5K in a triathlon, should someone strive to be over 200, 190?

How short or long could a step be? If someone has to run at 195 steps/min to run 6:45 to 7:00 min/mile is their step too short?

Will people just naturally select their cadence and stride length?

Does any of that matter?

Thoughts?

the stride length is real short there then.

4

People will automatically gravitate toward an efficient cadence (varies slightly with speed) for our biomechanics. IMO it’s best to let your body pick this and not try to artificially modify it. This is different from cycling where we spin higher cadences to spare our leg muscles that we will need when the attacks come.

I looked at some of my runs and was 160 at 7:00 and 170 at 5:30 pace. That’s on the slow side, but it’s what works well for me.

5

180 seems to be at the high end for most people. Like another poster said, it is individual. Most of my easier runs are around 160. Faster workouts are around 170.
Shorter faster cadence is said to be more efficient and keeps one from over striding. Up to 180 is good. I know a few that have higher than 180.
Go out and try it on your own. Many running watches calculate it for you.
Something to watch and work on, but correct form is more important.

6

How short or long could a step be? Will people just naturally select their cadence and stride length? Does any of that matter? Thoughts?

What matters is where your foot lands in relation to your centre of mass, basic physics. Any overt striding past this point results in a braking force, something you do not overtly want to create.

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/triathlete/triathlon-run/perfect-your-running-form/7635.html

People will automatically gravitate toward an efficient cadence (varies slightly with speed) for our biomechanics. IMO it’s best to let your body pick this and not try to artificially modify it.

And I’d add I strongly agree with this point.

Regards

David

7

I am around 180 nearly all the time other than racing short distance like 1 or 2 mile. then I end up around 190 or 200.

8

I think it’s something you should try out for yourself and find out what suits you. I switched to minimal padding shoes quite some years ago, and that resulted in my cadence changing from ~160 to 180.

Now, I run around 180-195 cadence no matter what speed. I simply increase my stride length to pickup speed. It’s not something I consciously think about.

9

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. My legs are pretty small and i’m just looking at different ideas right now.

Here is an example of what I did today, it’s a workout straight from Daniels Running Formula done at the paces prescribed:

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1444405533

In the faster intervals I’m often 190+. Really to run much faster I would think my stride needs to open up a bit

But then here’s Monday’s workout done a little quicker with a slightly slower cadence and longer stride.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1438368475

Here are mile repeats at T pace I did on Wednesday and I was nearly 182 on all of them

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1440845659

On these three workouts I wasn’t concentrating on cadence at all, I just did what I needed to do to run the prescribed paces

10

Will people just naturally select their cadence and stride length?

98+% of all people will self select the most economical rate and length for themselves.

Stride rate and length both increase as velocity goes up, but length increases faster than rate. I’ve posted a ton of links to research on ST about this. Here is something else I just read on it:

http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/kenyans-cadence-and-ground-contact-time

11

Thanks

jaretj
.

12

Another question: None of those guys have 27 inch legs, should all the same ideas apply?

By practicing running faster I would think that I would just naturally select a longer stride when needed, is there a point, say maybe 200+ that I should be looking at ways to increase my stride length?

13

No need to think about it. Just run.

14

OK, thanks again.

jaretj

15

Thanks again everyone for your thoughts.

jaretj

16

When I first started running my cadence was very low. I didn’t measure it at the time but I would guess 150-160 would have been typical. Following knee problems I repeatedly tried to restart running and eventually managed to get back running without pain by using zero drop, relatively uncushioned shoes and consciously increasing my cadence. I believe I was originally overstriding and relying on heal cushioning to reduce the impact. For the first couple of runs where I tried raising the cadence, it felt odd but comfortable. Then it quickly became second nature. And now running with a slower cadence feels wrong and less comfortable.
My cadence is now typically about 178-182spm when very fatigued or taking it really easy, 184-188spm for a steady run, about 192-196spm at tempo and often over 200spm for fast intervals, sprints, etc. I’m not a fast runner, but I’m very comfortable and I think I’m pretty efficient.

I didn’t gradually increase my cadence over time and I would question the wisdom of trying to do that. I consciously tried to increase cadence and found that I was able to run smoothly at low cadence or high cadence. I never ran in the middle range (say 165-175spm).
I don’t fully subscribe to the idea of infallible self-selection. I suspect we automatically tune to the most efficient cadence but only within a certain range. We do not, I suspect, automatically shift ranges. I suspect there are natural frequencies dependent on limb length, limb weight distribution, pace and other variables at which an individual will be comfortable and efficient, there may be more than one such frequency and we gravitate to these from adjacent frequencies. For example, if 155spm and 185spm are two such frequencies for a given pace and the cadence range to which I’m accustomed is 150-170spm, then I’d tend to gravitate to 155spm for that pace. Whereas if I’m accustomed to a cadence range of say 175-200spm I would instead gravitate to 185spm. All cadences in between would be less comfortable and less efficient. If this was the case then there would be no natural path between 155spm and 185spm other than conscious effort or accident. Self selection may have a choice of outcomes with the start point being fundamental to which of these is selected.

Now, for people who have come to running later in life and who ran at low paces as they acquired fitness, it’s likely they will have become used to low cadences. Also heavily cushioned shoes allow us to tolerate over-striding to a great extent. It seems likely to me that this would lead to most of us self-selecting the lower natural frequency by default despite it possibly having drawbacks such as injury risk - IF my supposition is correct!

17

I think what’s important isn’t cadence itself, its what cadence indicates about your run mechanics. Very high cadence might indicate that your not getting adequate forward drive from your quads and glutes. Too low and your leg recovery motion is ineffecient, and your are driving more upward than forward and that energy isn’t being recovered on initial ground contact. It’s can be a combination of timing and hip motion, core stability issues.

It’s funny, but as your break it down, there are a lot of parallels to swimming in mechanics, only in reverse of arms and legs. A strong core and torso position in swimming, hip position in running. Both are complicated movements, and small changes can have a big impact.

18

I’m sure you’re mostly correct, in that it’s what cadence indicates about your run mechanics that’s most important, but I think the cadence figure itself is likely somewhat relevant too if it’s linked to body dimensions and mass distribution. We’re not such rigid and undamped systems that we will resonate and fall apart if we hit a resonant frequency but I presume there are natural frequencies at play that will serve to improve/disimprove smoothness and efficiency of movement. I may be talking nonesense. I’ve only given this a little thought and may be missing something obvious!