1

Tire/out of breath quickly when trying to reach cadence of 180. Is that normal? (Read 203 times)

Delacram


    I have timed my cadence and have been in the 150-160 steps/minute range. Each time I try to get that magical 180, I find that I can't keep it up for very long due to the effort it requires. What am I doing wrong? 

    I don't think my weight is the problem (though, I am trying to lose weight). I am 5'11", 201 pounds.

    How do I build tolerance to this cadence?

    zonykel


      I have timed my cadence and have been in the 150-160 steps/minute range. Each time I try to get that magical 180, I find that I can't keep it up for very long due to the effort it requires. What am I doing wrong? 

      I don't think my weight is the problem (though, I am trying to lose weight). I am 5'11", 201 pounds.

      How do I build tolerance to this cadence?

       

      Is your stride shorter than before? You may have increased your pace inadvertently.

      Delacram


        Are you referring to my stride length? I believe I have shortened it over the past few weeks; however, when I speed up, it lengthens, of course.

        zonykel


          If 180 steps per second requires more effort at the same pace as 160 steps per second, then 180 is not optimal for you.

            My normal cadence is about 160.  When I tried running at 180, it felt awkward and unnatural.  What worked for me was to work on gradual increases in leg turnover, no more than 3 or 4 steps per minute increase at a time.  I've been at it a couple weeks now, and am now managing a 172.  My HR (effort) is the same as before I changed cadence, but my pace is about 20 sec per mile faster.  I run using podrunner podcasts from itunes, so picking a cadence is easy.

            PRs:

            5k: 25:05 (Sep 2011)     10k: 51:57 (Aug 2012)     half: 1:56:46 (May 2013)     full: 4:19:22 (Oct 2012)

              Try it while running on a treadmill, so that pace remains constant.

              “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

                Are you referring to my stride length? I believe I have shortened it over the past few weeks; however, when I speed up, it lengthens, of course.

                 

                Why 'of course'? If you keep you cadence constant then an increase in speed must mean an increase in stride length. But it's perfectly possible to speed up by increasing cadence and keeping stride length the same.

                 

                I think probably most people tend to increase both stride length and cadence when they speed up.

                 

                Perhaps this is why you're finding it hard to hit 180? Try running at the same speed with smaller, quicker, lighter steps.

                MrNamtor


                DON'T TREAD ON ME

                  Is 180 definitively the ideal cadence?

                  zonykel


                    http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html

                     

                    Blog post above was written by Steve Magness on the 180 stride rate discussion.

                     

                    (Modified to fix hyperlink).

                      Is 180 definitively the ideal cadence?

                       

                      Yes but ... its a symptom not the cause of being an efficient, fast runner. You don't improve by artificially trying to run with a fast cadence, you develop a fast cadence by becoming a faster, more efficient runner. By training.

                       

                      Horse then cart.

                      Runners run.


                      Dad of a real runner

                         

                        Yes but ... its a symptom not the cause of being an efficient, fast runner. You don't improve by artificially trying to run with a fast cadence, you develop a fast cadence by becoming a faster, more efficient runner. By training.

                         

                        Horse then cart.

                        Good point.

                          I have been training for several years, but I was somewhat in a rut with my easy pace, partly due to inefficient form (overstriding).  In focusing on increasing cadence, my form and thus my efficiency has improved, without an increase in effort.

                           

                          Yes but ... its a symptom not the cause of being an efficient, fast runner. You don't improve by artificially trying to run with a fast cadence, you develop a fast cadence by becoming a faster, more efficient runner. By training.

                           

                          Horse then cart.

                          PRs:

                          5k: 25:05 (Sep 2011)     10k: 51:57 (Aug 2012)     half: 1:56:46 (May 2013)     full: 4:19:22 (Oct 2012)


                          Hungry

                            There are a lot of moving parts here, I think.  I made a very gradual switch to minimalist shoes a couple of years ago after reading Born to Run. It seemed that the only way that this switch was going to work for me was to try to land more toward my mid-foot or fore-foot (and avoid heel-striking), which resulted in shortening my stride length, which resulted in a higher cadence for a given effort level. But I was not aware of this last effect until much later when I read about the "ideal" 180 cadence. I have since counted my cadence on the treadmill on several occasions. I'm usually in the mid to upper 170's during aerobic paces, but I'll push up over 180 if I'm doing a tempo run or anything faster, like intervals. I think that, as evidenced above, some people might be able to achieve improvements in form by focusing on a quicker cadence, but it does not sound like the OP made any changes in form (hence, the increased effort in going to a higher cadence).