Cadence / Stride Length ... Advice Needed

7 watchers
Jun 2015
7:57pm, 25 Jun 2015
106 posts
  •  
  • 0
fazmo
I understand that I should be aiming for cadence of between 180 and 190 ...

When I train at a comfortable pace my cadence is generally 168.
When I race or train hard my cadence is 180, sometimes a bit more.

So to go faster I mostly just move my legs more quickly. Is this the best approach or should I train at 180 ish also? If I do that, then to go faster I just take longer steps! So do I want uniform stride length or uniform cadence?

I have been trying to pick up my training cadence over the last month. I can now run at training pace at 180 cadence, but its not getting any easier ... my legs are killing!

Thanks in advance ...
Jun 2015
8:16pm, 25 Jun 2015
639 posts
  •  
  • 0
chunkywizard
I'm no expert, but I train and run at about 180 cadence. When you are running slower just take short steps, hence you will go slower. It feels a bit like shuffling at first but you get used to it.

HTH

CW
SPR
Jun 2015
9:24pm, 25 Jun 2015
20,334 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
I don't think 168 is an issue at easy pace.

This is a good blog on cadence: scienceofrunning.com

Even if you are trying to increase it, killing your legs isn't the way forward.
Jun 2015
10:07pm, 25 Jun 2015
107 posts
  •  
  • 0
fazmo
Thanks CW - it seems that you naturally run the way that I've been aiming for.

SPR, interesting blog. Focus on form rather than stats seems to be the message ... quite right when I consider my motives for this exercise I realise I want to be able to race faster so would benefit from better form (not overstriding) and maybe from having a naturally quick stride pattern.

I think I agree with you SPR ... 168 could be OK. I need to decide whether to continue the experiment ...
Jun 2015
11:14pm, 25 Jun 2015
1,547 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
The recommendation of cadence 180 is based on observation of a non-representative sample of athletes. As Steve Magness pointed out (in the article linked by SPR) data shows that experienced athletes increase both cadence and stride length as speed increases. There are other articles reporting a similar observation. Alex Hutchinson did an interesting post on this few years ago. sweatscience.com Unfortunately there is no good scientific study that provides a definitive answer.

However there is quite good study by Heiderschiet showing that if recreational runners increase their self-selected pace by 5-10% they produce substantial decreases in the stress on knee and hip joints, so if you are experiencing joint problems, it is considering the possibility that an increase in cadence might help. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
J2R
Jun 2015
10:06am, 26 Jun 2015
96 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
That 180 figure is a kind of magic number which seems to have taken a mythical place in running lore. I've been looking into this myself for a while, and also observing my own running closely. I think when you look into the literature in detail, you'll find that there really is quite a lot of variation, and that the 180 recommendation becomes a lot more nebulous. 180 for what? All distances, at all levels of intensity? Unlikely. Even among the elites there is a tendency for the cadence to be lower for the longer distance races (where the pace will of course be lower), although there's a video on YouTube of Zersenay Tadese completing the Lisbon Half Marathon in a world record time with an incredibly high cadence, which just proves that there's no one-size-fits-all.

I'm no Canute, so take what I say with a wheelbarrow of salt - but I think as long as you're not overstriding, you probably don't have to worry too much, if your top end cadence is 180 or above. That is, if your race pace for something like a 5K has a cadence of 180 or more, then it's likely that your cadence for easier runs, although less, will probably be appropriate. My cadence for a 5K race will typically be about 180-182, but in recent PBs for 10 miles it was 176 and half marathon 172. I don't believe there was any change in the nature of my gait.
Jun 2015
11:43am, 26 Jun 2015
1,400 posts
  •  
  • 0
EarlyRiser
I no longer concern myself with cadence (as a number.) Or stride length for that matter (as a distance.)

It's clear that 180 is meaningless without context of pace, as others have rightly said.

The anti-over-striding cue (to 'increase cadence') as guidance to recreational runners has probably gone to far from my observations of others. It's led to more people doing that 'quick foot shimmy shuffle' style of running. (and I have been a past culprit)

Sometimes it's nice to run easy with quick feet, sometimes nice to just lope along at the same easy pace.

Self-observation tells me that when I want to push my pace - in training or racing, I turn my legs over faster (first) and an increase in stride length (naturally) follows. So gain comes from both cadence and stride (as Magness points out.)

My question is, while it is certainly perceptual for me that increased turnover precedes longer stride, isn't that also just basic physics? If I apply greater velocity to leg movement, resulting ground impact resistance will also be greater, trigger a stronger push-off and hence longer stride length?

Also, from a brain-muscle link point of view. I find it easier/better to idealise 'turn legs faster' and just 'do it' than 'make bigger strides' and then do that. If I idealised the latter, I'd risk falling into the trap of over-striding.
Jun 2015
1:54pm, 26 Jun 2015
1,549 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
ER I agree that consciously planning to increase stride length is likely to increase risk of 'over-striding.
In fact, I find that the traditional catch-phrase 'get your knees up' can be helpful when increasing pace. It is likley to result in increase in stride length but I do not find it promotes over-striding
Jun 2015
1:59pm, 26 Jun 2015
108 posts
  •  
  • 0
fazmo
Some excellent analysis here thank you. You've convinced me and I will ease off on my hurry to get quicker feet. I'll try not to drop below 170 but other than that I'll run naturally.

The comment above from Earlyriser regarding selecting a stride pattern for the occasion strikes a chord - not many more enjoyable pastimes than a long lazy stride on a warm weather run!!

Conversely, I can also believe the reduction in injury from increased cadence - although my leg muscles are sore, the impact on my joints seems much less.

I'm interested to hear any other cadence views ...
J2R
Jun 2015
2:11pm, 26 Jun 2015
97 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
I think of trying to get my feet off the ground quickly, rather than turning the legs faster. Has the same effect, but it works better as an image for me.

About This Thread

Maintained by fazmo
I understand that I should be aiming for cadence of between 180 and 190 ...

When I train at a com...

Related Threads

  • cadence
  • training









Back To Top
X

Free training & racing tools for runners, cyclists, swimmers & walkers.

Fetcheveryone lets you analyse your training, find races, plot routes, chat in our forum, get advice, play games - and more! Nothing is behind a paywall, and it'll stay that way thanks to our awesome community!
Get Started
Click here to join 112,112 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here