Cadence Candor: "Look ma, no gears!"

Bare Lee

Chapter Presidents
Jul 25, 2011
6,100
6,617
113
Saint Paul
OK, on this morning's run, I finally got around to checking out my cadence. I had often wondered about the idea that running cadence should hold steady, like on a bike, when in fact our bodies don't have anything equivalent to gears (stride length doesn't count, right?, because it's determined by velocity, not a changing ratio of power delivery while cadence holds steady).

At 10mm pace, my cadence was 162. Oh no, not enough turn-over! But then I found that at a faster pace, I think it was close to 8mm, it was more like 180. That made intuitive sense. If I consciously try to push the cadence it has the exact same effect as consciously pushing the pace: I go faster. Presumably at an even faster pace I would have an even faster cadence, eventually approximating the elites, who are often over 200 steps per minute. So on a work (procrastination) break, I Googled 'running cadence' and came across this interesting article:

http://sweatscience.com/the-problem-with-180-strides-per-minute-some-personal-data/

This seems to confirm what I found this morning, but I'm going to experiment more on my next run for further verification.

So is the 180 ideal another one of those half-understood ideas that gets read and passed down without anyone questioning the assumptions behind it? (Apparently the figure originated with Daniels, who worked with elite, not recreational, runners.) Or do you think it has validity? Try running at varying paces and see if your cadence 'naturally' changes.
 
Running barefoot for almost 3 years and have no clue what my cadence is and never had interest in finding out. I just go out move the legs and run.
BG, I'm with you. I've done precious little to adjust my running form/style, although I have noticed that my form feels better with slightly faster paces. My interest in cadence arises mostly out of intellectual curiosity (it seems counter-intuitive to keep one's cadence steady no matter the speed, which is why I finally got around to checking my own), but also the fact that my brother and nephew are asking for some coaching. On tomorrow's run, which is supposed to be a fartlek day, I'm going to investigate it a bit more, and that will probably be the end of it. As long as Hutchinson and his citation have provided evidence that cadence should change with pace, that's all the justification I need to ignore it. But for the last several months I've been obsessed with all things having to do with running (although little has changed as a result), so looking into cadence was kind of the final piece of the puzzle. So far my conclusions are these:

1.) it's good to vary one's running, and so now I do fartleks and hills along with steady paced runs.

2.) repetitive stress is the number one running bugaboo, even if you have good form, so I'm limiting myself to running an hour or so max most of the time, no matter how much I improve as a runner, and have mostly given up on the idea of running consecutive days, so I'm keeping to the 48-hour rest rule I've always followed.

3.) good posture and having one's foot land slightly in front of one's center of mass are the only cues worth paying attention to for most runners (Jimmy Hart recently confirmed this conclusion for me, based on his vast experience as a coach). Luckily, as far as I can tell, and judging by others' observations, these come naturally to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happysongbird
It just developed on it's own. It is not something I think about while I run. When I started out a year or so ago it was around 170. I must say though that as my cadence evolved, so did my form. It just feels right to me, and feels natural now. When I look at my cadenece graph now it surprises me how smooth the graph line is and how consistent it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happysongbird
It just developed on it's own. It is not something I think about while I run. When I started out a year or so ago it was around 170. I must say though that as my cadence evolved, so did my form. It just feels right to me, and feels natural now. When I look at my cadenece graph now it surprises me how smooth the graph line is and how consistent it is.
Interesting. I'll be fun to test myself tomorrow. I'm thinking of doing 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7 mm paces. You're in the same time zone as us in Minnesota, right? Are you a chronic early-riser too?
 
Yes, but now I changed my shift so I start at 5 get off at 1, go for a run and then out to the golf course. I have always been a early bird, even as a kid.
Same here, it killed me to wait for everyone to wake up on X-mas, and I started delivering newspapers when I was 11 (first day was Jan 1st!), so it's a lifelong habit. Have a good run and have fun on the links!
 
Last year when I was completely rethinking my running form I bought a foot pod for my Garmin. Having read the 180 rule like everyone else, I was curious where I was in relation to that. As it turns out, I was between 160 & 170…..and sometimes a little lower on inclines. When I started BFR’ing I noticed when I ran shod with my footpod on that my cadence had become quicker at the same speeds. It seems for me, training barefoot had naturally quickened my cadence. I hadn’t run with the footpod for months, but wore it this morning for my morning run. Whenever I glanced at my Garmin I was around 190-200 up-hill and down. When I sped up for the last km, my cadence didn’t change much when I went from a 6min/km to about a 5min/km pace…..so presumably only my stride length increased.

Bare Lee, the only observation I would make from your OP is that you said that your form felt better when you went faster, which is also when your cadence is higher. Perhaps there is a message in there somewhere ?

I find I am much lighter on my feet with a quicker turnover. I know my feet are much quieter now, when running both BF and shod. If I try to run where I used to run (160’ish), I can’t get any bend in my knees. As soon as I drop my hips and bend my knees my cadence naturally increases. I don’t know that there is any magic specifically in the 180 number you read in so many places, but I’m certainly a believer in ensuring your turnover is quick enough that you’re not overstriding. For some people that could be under 180 I suppose, due to physiology or other reasons. For others (like me) the number is closer to 200. The big thing is you’re comfortable and healthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happysongbird
Last year when I was completely rethinking my running form I bought a foot pod for my Garmin. Having read the 180 rule like everyone else, I was curious where I was in relation to that. As it turns out, I was between 160 & 170…..and sometimes a little lower on inclines. When I started BFR’ing I noticed when I ran shod with my footpod on that my cadence had become quicker at the same speeds. It seems for me, training barefoot had naturally quickened my cadence. I hadn’t run with the footpod for months, but wore it this morning for my morning run. Whenever I glanced at my Garmin I was around 190-200 up-hill and down. When I sped up for the last km, my cadence didn’t change much when I went from a 6min/km to about a 5min/km pace…..so presumably only my stride length increased.

Bare Lee, the only observation I would make from your OP is that you said that your form felt better when you went faster, which is also when your cadence is higher. Perhaps there is a message in there somewhere ?

I find I am much lighter on my feet with a quicker turnover. I know my feet are much quieter now, when running both BF and shod. If I try to run where I used to run (160’ish), I can’t get any bend in my knees. As soon as I drop my hips and bend my knees my cadence naturally increases. I don’t know that there is any magic specifically in the 180 number you read in so many places, but I’m certainly a believer in ensuring your turnover is quick enough that you’re not overstriding. For some people that could be under 180 I suppose, due to physiology or other reasons. For others (like me) the number is closer to 200. The big thing is you’re comfortable and healthy.
Right, I don't want to over-think this; comfort and health are numero uno. But the topic is interesting, as is your data. I'm also wondering if height and/or limb length have anything to do with it. Just as hummingbirds beat their wings at a greater rate than do storks, I wonder if taller people have lower cadences--I'm about 6'1" 1/2, so perhaps I should expect a lower cadence overall? Any thoughts (anyone)?

I'm not sure if I would draw the lesson you do from the fact that my form feels better at faster paces, but it is something to consider. I'm mostly drawing on my cycling experience here, as I've never thought about cadence in running before I took up BFR, and started seeing the 180 figure everywhere. But if you have a single-gear bike, then your cadence increases with speed. Human legs are essentially single-gear, so I would expect the same thing (although perhaps stride-length complicates things?). The whole point of gears is to maintain a steady cadence/power output, in order to stay under one's lactate threshold. Yet in running, pace largely determines lactate threshold, no matter the cadence, right?

In any case, thanks for the input. There are a few common bits of advice that are counter-intuitive for me--constant cadence, knee-bending, and maff training--so I've been wondering if I can safely ignore them. The knee bending I've more or less ignored right from the start, as I'm sure my feet are landing properly, except sometimes towards the end of a run when I begin to tire and then it really does help to consciously pick up the knees a bit. But cadence and maff training are worth puzzling over, since the reported benefits are substantial--less injury and better aerobic capacity, respectively--which do relate to health and comfort.
 
Lee,

The 180 cadence guideline became valuable to me when I decided to start coaching runners. Prior to that it had little meaning to me or my running. As an elite runner years back I was always happy with my cadence through my speed ranges. It used to be in the mid 170s to high 180s from slow to faster speeds. As I mentioned it is currently much more constant throughout a wide speed range and higher than in the past. Yes, I deliberately practiced changing it to become automatic and natural in its current state. The change took place through a few year progressive of a technique overall via pose method. The basic concept for me is that I want my body weight to move from step to step at a constant rate as that would lend to the least amount uninterrupted movement as I go thru landing. I feel this gives me the least amount of braking effort from my muscle system. Given this experience I now see the value in the feedback of cadence and how it relates to technique as a whole. I agree with Hawk that the fact that you feel better at faster speed and higher cadence is a sign that you can either read and act accordingly or dismiss it......
 
Lee,

The 180 cadence guideline became valuable to me when I decided to start coaching runners. Prior to that it had little meaning to me or my running. As an elite runner years back I was always happy with my cadence through my speed ranges. It used to be in the mid 170s to high 180s from slow to faster speeds. As I mentioned it is currently much more constant throughout a wide speed range and higher than in the past. Yes, I deliberately practiced changing it to become automatic and natural in its current state. The change took place through a few year progressive of a technique overall via pose method. The basic concept for me is that I want my body weight to move from step to step at a constant rate as that would lend to the least amount uninterrupted movement as I go thru landing. I feel this gives me the least amount of braking effort from my muscle system. Given this experience I now see the value in the feedback of cadence and how it relates to technique as a whole. I agree with Hawk that the fact that you feel better at faster speed and higher cadence is a sign that you can either read and act accordingly or dismiss it......
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your elite background makes your thoughts on this matter especially valuable. My higher cadence reading at 8mm pace yesterday may not be all that accurate though, as the goal of yesterday's run was to see if I could maintain a 10mm pace for an hour early in the morning, so I didn't want to risk tiring too much as I experimented at faster paces (and I learned my first day out with my new Garmin a month ago that looking at it for very long can lead to stubbed toes!). The only cadence reading I can be sure of is the 10mm one. Tomorrow I'll be much more careful in my measurements and report back. I'll also try consciously faster cadences at slower paces and see if that feels better, as both you and Hawk suggest it might. I must say, when I see you run slower paces your form looks quite different from most people's because of the high cadence. Not saying that's good or bad, but it is quite noticeable.
 
Lee,

Don't expect a forced high cadence to feel comfortable. What you see me doing at slower paced running is very relaxed automaitic reaction to posture and leg recovery. Keep up the experimenting. You never know what gems you may find in the journey ;-)
 
Same here, it killed me to wait for everyone to wake up on X-mas, and I started delivering newspapers when I was 11 (first day was Jan 1st!), so it's a lifelong habit. Have a good run and have fun on the links!
I never waited for everyone to wake up, I would go and wake them all up and tell them to quit sleeping the day away. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee

Support Your Club

Forum statistics

Threads
19,094
Messages
183,433
Members
8,688
Latest member
Jojo9090