Cadence

An environment where you can be open & frank about your quest for speed

EmilZatopek
Johnny Miles
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:34 am

Cadence

Postby EmilZatopek » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:11 pm

I'm looking to improve my running cadence. My average steps per minute will range from 166-170 (according to my footpod sensor). Can anyone recomend any drills or have any advice on turning my feet over quicker? I've heard of using a metronome, can anyone recomend an app or device?
If it is important to you, you will find a way. If not you'll find an excuse.

5k - 18:40
10 - 39:02
Half - 1:29:11

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Cadence

Postby ian » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:16 pm

Good project. As a taller runner who can sometimes get away with long loping steps, I think that the work I invested in increasing my cadence had a lot to do with big breakthroughs in my race results five years ago.

Some suggestions:

(1) Strides -- Run quickly (not quite sprinting) for 45 steps (counting off one side) and expect to be near 30 seconds (corresponding to 180 total steps per minute). After a full jog recovery (typically a minute), repeat about 10 times for a light speed workout, or simply do a few early on in an otherwise easy run to get the turnover up. Reasoning: it is difficult to be inefficient when running quickly, therefore we automatically tend to have better form during speedwork. The trick is to transfer these efficiencies down to slower speeds.

(2) Music -- Whether you run with actual music or just have songs stuck in your head, there are a number of catchy tunes around the magic 180 bpm tempo that can keep your cadence honest without having to count steps. I frequently use this tactic in the late stages of marathons to keep me quick and it has the added bonus of being a welcome distraction.

(3) Don't push off so hard -- Running speed equals stride length times stride rate, therefore an increase in cadence can justify a slight decrease in stride length without causing you to slow down. More specifically, thinking about taking slightly shorter steps (while reducing vertical motion) is a good way to train oneself into increasing the cadence. Over time, the stride length can be restored on account of fitness gains.

EmilZatopek
Johnny Miles
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:34 am

Re: Cadence

Postby EmilZatopek » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:07 pm

Thats good advice, thank you.

I'm gunna try to add the strides to my long easy paced runs. I usually don't run with music but I downloaded a run specific metronome app that I'm gunna try to match my steps to.

I definetly notice I push off too hard and I start to throw my foot out too far ahead when I become fatigued from running a hard pace after while.
If it is important to you, you will find a way. If not you'll find an excuse.

5k - 18:40
10 - 39:02
Half - 1:29:11

User avatar
MichaelMc
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Cadence

Postby MichaelMc » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:04 am

Good suggestions. Something that can help if you have it available is running with someone who has a faster cadence. Match their cadence consciously for a while and try to relax and get the feel of it.

User avatar
fingerboy
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Cadence

Postby fingerboy » Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:34 am

Run hard down a steep slope! Its good practice IMO to get the feeling of high cadence.

Though often during running for me all it takes its to be conscious of it. I say in my head.. what if I had one more stride than the guy ahead or something then I'll gain on them (or take off and leave those behind).

User avatar
jgore
Abby Hoffman
Posts: 8437
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:31 am

Re: Cadence

Postby jgore » Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:22 am

Unfortunately, the Running Room discontinued a watch they made that had a cadence timer - basically, a built-in metronome - but they mislabeled the function as "Pace". (I've told them for years that they need an editor who actually knows the English language.) A small metronome would work well.

One thing I do to keep my turnover high is slow down my breathing. My natural breathing pattern, when not sprinting or going up a steep hill, is exhale-2-3-4-exhale-2-3-4. If I switch to exhaling every 5th or 6th step, my stride shortens and my turnover increases.

User avatar
eme
Lynn Williams
Posts: 16644
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:51 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Re: Cadence

Postby eme » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:03 am

I use this metronome for swimming, but it comes with a clip for running as well:

http://www.amazon.ca/FINIS-1-05-015-Tempo-Trainer/dp/B001GQ2BK4

The more expensive version shown below (as the newer model) has a replaceable battery and floats (the old one is a sealed unit and sinks in a pool :? )

User avatar
West Grey Runner
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:29 am
Location: West Grey (Near Owen Sound), Ontario
Contact:

Re: Cadence

Postby West Grey Runner » Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:38 pm

Board on the treadmill recently I checked my Cadence

6:00 pace = 160
5:00 pace = 172
4:30 pace = 178

I am not sure which is better or necessarily correct changing your cadence or your stride length to adjust speed. I always felt like I started running once i surpassed a 5:00 pace. It just felt different and now I know why.

User avatar
MichaelMc
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Cadence

Postby MichaelMc » Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:00 pm

West Grey Runner wrote:Board on the treadmill recently I checked my Cadence

6:00 pace = 160
5:00 pace = 172
4:30 pace = 178

I am not sure which is better or necessarily correct changing your cadence or your stride length to adjust speed. I always felt like I started running once i surpassed a 5:00 pace. It just felt different and now I know why.


Both should actually change, but MOST of the change should be from distance travelled in the air. Odds are you are either very bouncy or over striding at the 160 cadence. It is not unusual for people to be inefficient at slower paces as we spent most of our youth trying to run FAST not slow (when we did run), plus we have less NEED to be efficient when we're not working that hard.

User avatar
La
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 47990
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Lesleyville!

Re: Cadence

Postby La » Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:16 am

MichaelMc wrote:MOST of the change should be from distance travelled in the air.

I think this is an interesting point, and one that came up in another post about stride length vs cadence. When we say "stride length" the image I get is of the length of the stride I'm taking (i.e., how far I'm reaching my front leg out). But it sounds like this idea of "distance travelled in the air" is really what is relevant. We can only turn our legs over so fast (and I think - like with cycling - we each have an optimal cadence, as opposed to one cadence being perfect for everyone), so how can we work on increasing the distance travelled in the air without over-striding?
"Maybe I will be my own inspiration." - UltraMonk (Laura)
"Everywhere is walking distance if you have enough time." - Steven Wright

User avatar
West Grey Runner
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:29 am
Location: West Grey (Near Owen Sound), Ontario
Contact:

Re: Cadence

Postby West Grey Runner » Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:29 am

Guilty as charged ... too bouncy!

I mostly run Ultras so all that up and down for hours on end surely adds a significant amount of fatigue. So I will work on a slightly higher cadence with a little shorter stride. Should make that next 100 miler a little easier. Wait ...lesson learned a long time ago , there is no such thing as an easy 100 miler :wink:

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Cadence

Postby Jwolf » Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:55 am

I always thought my cadence was about 180, but after this thread I measured it and I realize it's closer to 165. If I try to increase it, it doesn't feel natural but it is something I could work on. (It's actually easy to see at the end of my run because my Moves app counts steps really well!)

Is it something worth working on? Or is what La says is true- that people tend to have a natural cadence which may or may not be close to 180?Is there an optimal cadence? There seems to be varying opinion on this.
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
La
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 47990
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Lesleyville!

Re: Cadence

Postby La » Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:57 am

Next time I'm bored on the TM I should try counting. I don't know if my TM cadence is the same as it would be outside, though. I guess I could count that, too, for comparison.
"Maybe I will be my own inspiration." - UltraMonk (Laura)
"Everywhere is walking distance if you have enough time." - Steven Wright

User avatar
Joe Dwarf
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2183
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Re: Cadence

Postby Joe Dwarf » Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:21 am

La wrote: how can we work on increasing the distance travelled in the air without over-striding?
From previous discussions, it's a stronger push rather than trying to reach further. You are still trying to land with the foot under the body rather than ahead.

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Cadence

Postby ian » Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:26 pm

Joe Dwarf wrote:
La wrote: how can we work on increasing the distance travelled in the air without over-striding?
From previous discussions, it's a stronger push rather than trying to reach further. You are still trying to land with the foot under the body rather than ahead.

Indeed. In essence, to increase the distance per stride, "run faster". I know it sounds circular, but we already know how to increase stride distance. The hard part is developing the fitness (muscular and aerobic) to make this more sustainable.

Jwolf wrote:Is it something worth working on? Or is what La says is true- that people tend to have a natural cadence which may or may not be close to 180?Is there an optimal cadence? There seems to be varying opinion on this.

There's no doubt that 180 is a slightly arbitrary round number that cannot possibly be optimal for every single runner at every single speed. That being said, it turns out to be surprisingly robust such that I'd flag anything below 170 as something worth looking at. Coming back from an injury is a great time to work on this because it's less tedious to monitor during reduced mileage and because a higher cadence will usually reduce the impacts which can sometimes aggravate the injury site.

User avatar
purdy65
Abby Hoffman
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Cadence

Postby purdy65 » Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:16 pm

Interesting. I'm going to pay more attention to my cadence.

So (asking as a person with very short legs) - how is it that so many of the quick female (and male) marathoners are so tiny? Is this saying we have to sustain a greater cadence to cover the same distance in the same time as a taller person? And would a smaller person have to be more fit? Have better endurance?

OR - is it just easier to move little legs faster? :lol: :lol:
It's not the size of the dog in the fight...it's the size of the fight in the dog! 11K Marker post - 2010 ATB.

Introducing 2017

GoodLife Half Marathon.
TBD

EmilZatopek
Johnny Miles
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:34 am

Re: Cadence

Postby EmilZatopek » Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:25 pm

Over the past two days I went for a few runs to try out the metronome app I download. I set it to 175 bpm (I know, 180 is the magic number but I'll build to it) and just focused on quicker feet. I also used my garmin footpod and set the display on my watch to cadence, this kept things accurate/consistant and after I was able to review the data. I have already noticed a few things so far. My posture was feeling more upright and I was feeling a better mid foot contact.

The app is called run tempo downloaded from iTunes, 99 cents. Simple features like a timer, high/low tone setting and seperate high or low tone setting.
If it is important to you, you will find a way. If not you'll find an excuse.

5k - 18:40
10 - 39:02
Half - 1:29:11

User avatar
MichaelMc
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Cadence

Postby MichaelMc » Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:43 pm

Any rule of thumb deserves deep suspicion including 180 cadence. In point of fact runners' cadence tends to increase slightly with speed (lets say from 175 at very easy pace to 185 going for the finish line). There are variations how much from runner to runner, too. No number is cast in stone.

Having said that, the vast majority of good runners fall close to 180 at all normal speeds regardless of height: really NOT what you would expect. I'll try to explain why that is, but I'm not always successful at communicating this one: I'll try to limit the details.

You can only PUSH when you are touching the ground; all your forward motion is created in that (contact) phase. Your push off ideally is at an angle creating only as much height as you need to pull your other leg forward (the 'swing' phase), the rest of the force should be moving yourself forward. As soon as you can reposition your other leg to be ready to push again you want to be back in contact with the ground so you can push again. What limits cadence is actually the swing phase, how long it takes to move your leg forward. Not to digress too much, but that is where Oscar Pistorius' main technical advantage is (ultra light "legs", very fast swing phase). It take virtually the same length of time to reposition your legs at all paces, so the most effective way to run faster is increase the forward force each push off (therefore stride length). True whether you are 6'5 or 4'11. Ryan Hall's stride length at marathon pace is 6'10, so leg length is not much of the equation!

Phew! Anyway cadence IS one aspect of running form which is "trainable". In most things people are pretty good at finding the "lowest effort" (most efficient) way to move, but running at an EASY pace may be an exception where habit wins. Practicing running a variety of paces at a higher cadence may very well improve your endurance and potentially be easier on your body... after you get used to it. You will probably be LESS efficient until you get the hang of it, but it is often a surprisingly quick transition.
Last edited by MichaelMc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Joe Dwarf
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2183
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Re: Cadence

Postby Joe Dwarf » Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:04 pm

purdy65 wrote:how is it that so many of the quick female (and male) marathoners are so tiny?
All else being equal, less weight is less work. Also smaller people shed heat better, more surface area/lb.

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Cadence

Postby ian » Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:28 pm

Michael's latest explanation is excellent.

purdy65 wrote:So (asking as a person with very short legs) - how is it that so many of the quick female (and male) marathoners are so tiny? Is this saying we have to sustain a greater cadence to cover the same distance in the same time as a taller person? And would a smaller person have to be more fit? Have better endurance?

OR - is it just easier to move little legs faster? :lol: :lol:

One of my main running partners is seven inches shorter than me and about forty pounds lighter. (Come to think about it, Michael is essentially the same size too.) We have had countless training runs (as well as a few races) where we run in perfect synchronization together, therefore we have the same cadence and the same stride length (by virtue of speed divided by cadence). Sure, that stride length seems "longer" for a shorter person, but he's light enough that he doesn't have to push off quite as hard in order to move himself forward, so it all evens out and the difference (between him and me) comes down to fitness.

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Cadence

Postby Jwolf » Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:57 pm

I'm still not sold on whether the cadence-efficiency relationship is causal or simply a correlation. It seems many people have a range of cadences from around 160s to 180s; at slower running speeds their cadence is lower, and at faster speeds cadence is higher. When I was testing it out yesterday, as I tried to increase my cadence I naturally went faster; it was very hard to keep a fast cadence and very short steps. Here's an interesting article:

http://sweatscience.com/the-problem-wit ... #more-1974
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Cadence

Postby ian » Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:46 am

Jwolf wrote:I'm still not sold on whether the cadence-efficiency relationship is causal or simply a correlation.

I suspect it's a bit of both. In my own experience, the main benefit of increased cadence was increased endurance in order to run the second half of marathons without slowing down. This effect isn't captured by simple cadence vs. speed measurements.

User avatar
La
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 47990
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Lesleyville!

Re: Cadence

Postby La » Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:35 am

ian wrote:
Joe Dwarf wrote:
La wrote: how can we work on increasing the distance travelled in the air without over-striding?
From previous discussions, it's a stronger push rather than trying to reach further. You are still trying to land with the foot under the body rather than ahead.

Indeed. In essence, to increase the distance per stride, "run faster". I know it sounds circular, but we already know how to increase stride distance. The hard part is developing the fitness (muscular and aerobic) to make this more sustainable.

As I was running last night I was thinking more about this "push-off" aspect. I guess this is where power-to-weight ratio comes in. The power is how much force I can exert on the pushoff, and my weight will be a factor in how far I travel in the air from that pushoff. And this makes sense because I don't think my cadence has really changed as I've lost weight (and I haven't done anything to increase my power), but I'm traveling further with each step than I was when I was heavier.
"Maybe I will be my own inspiration." - UltraMonk (Laura)
"Everywhere is walking distance if you have enough time." - Steven Wright

User avatar
purdy65
Abby Hoffman
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Cadence

Postby purdy65 » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:06 am

OK,

I did a little experiment on the treadmill this morning. I DID find that that there was VERY little difference in my cadence as I increased speed, BUT my overall cadence was closer to 190-200 / minute. So I still say that my little legs do have to move faster than the average person BUT, perhaps because of the tiny legs, the faster cadence is easier?
It's not the size of the dog in the fight...it's the size of the fight in the dog! 11K Marker post - 2010 ATB.

Introducing 2017

GoodLife Half Marathon.
TBD

User avatar
fingerboy
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Cadence

Postby fingerboy » Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:22 am

About the push off - its more efficient to just land and lift in the L pattern with your feet - ie toes forward LL rather than pushing off to the toes to get 'maximum' push off. Aim for less ground contact time. And the more of a leg swing back the slower you will be able to swing forward to the next step. Drills like high knees with quick cadence can help this.


Return to “The Speed Zone”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests