|
May 2013
7:03pm, 23 May 2013
16,082 posts
|
FenlandRunner
Agree with Canute, I've heard 'excuses' just cos' you're tall (for example, me!!!) the cadence can be lower. That's rubbish. High cadence (at EVERY pace) always wins. 
|
|
May 2013
5:50am, 24 May 2013
2,814 posts
|
Garfield
Just one question though...barefoot runner heel strike? I don't think they would do that for very long for some odd reason...just the thought of it makes my back ache!
FR, on the tall business, if a person were to have fairly long legs, it would make sense to have a slightly lower cadence as too quick a cadence for them would start to be inefficient, as it would take longer for their legs to cycle through. Hope that makes sense...
|
|
May 2013
9:48am, 24 May 2013
16,085 posts
|
FenlandRunner
Higher cadence always wins over lower cadence, as landing closer to COG with bent knee is always better than landing with straight leg
|
|
May 2013
10:45am, 24 May 2013
18,480 posts
|
SPR
The bigger the bend in the knee the further in front of the body the foot is likely to be (assuming foot is under knee). Nothing necessarily wrong with this though.
Bolt has lower cadence than the other sprinters due to longer legs. Obviously over 180 though.
Taller/longer legged athletes probably have lower cadences in comparison to shorter athletes but still in the range that is deemed efficient.
|
|
May 2013
12:19pm, 24 May 2013
2,815 posts
|
Garfield
Thanks for taking my comment that little bit further SPR.
|
|
May 2013
1:13pm, 24 May 2013
16,086 posts
|
FenlandRunner
Thanks SPR
|
|
May 2013
1:29pm, 24 May 2013
634 posts
|
Canute
Garfield
Studies of barefoot Kenyans shows that a small proportion do heel strike but they have much more rapid rise in ground reaction force than either barefoot fore foot strikers or shod heel strikers. Therefore I would not recommend barefoot heel striking.
FR
With regard to higher cadence always being better, that is not absolutely true. Because repositioning costs increase with cadence, there is an optimum upper limit to cadence for a given speed (and height) of the runner. During Bolt’s world record breaking run at the World Championships in Berlin in 2009, his cruising cadence was 257 compared with Tyson Gay’s cadence of 281 steps /min. Gay is shorter.
|
|
May 2013
1:45pm, 24 May 2013
16,087 posts
|
FenlandRunner
Canute, agreed, I was really trying to emphasise that, in my view, stating 165 (just an example) is OK just cos' you're tall or running slowly isn't acceptable in ER terms.
|
|
May 2013
1:48pm, 24 May 2013
4,477 posts
|
jonp
"Because repositioning costs increase with cadence" - shouldn't that read "Because repositioning costs increase with speed" ?
|
|
May 2013
1:57pm, 24 May 2013
4,478 posts
|
jonp
FR, I know what you are getting at, and agree. In general most runners (non-elite level at least!) tend to have too low a cadence, and the reason is more often than not that they are swinging their legs back and forward in a walking style gait. When increasing speed the majority of people (incorrectly) tend to think that they need to swing their leg further forward in front of the body. Increasing cadence certainly beats doing!
But I think from a technique point of view it is probably more important to learn a better mechanic of folding the leg than of swinging it back and forward when you run. You will get a more nature (and higher) cadence as a result, instead of trying to force yourself to move the leg faster back and forward (which only ends in getting you more tired from a cardiovascular point of view :))
|
