Cadence - what does it all mean? (Read 3400 times)

I have read about cadence and tried to run 30 min at 180 footstrikes per minute. It was horrible. I felt like I was running like road runner (oh to be that fast!) I felt all sorts of aches and pains I haven't felt before and had to stop a few times to stretch as I was sorreis about injuring myself. Why is cadence important and should i persevere? Advice welcome!

Here's the deal with the cadence thing. At the 1984 Olympics, noted running coach Jack Daniels (not to be confused with Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey) took measurements of runners in races raning from 1500m to the marathon. He found that regardless of distance, these elite runners took around 180 steps per minute. Other studies have confirmed this. Ever since then, 180 has been thrown in my face. Personally, I'm calling BS on it. No, Mr. Daniels was not wrong, but his findings have been grossly generalized and misinterpreted. World-class athletes running at race pace should not be the template for Joe 5k's easy run. Or even an elite's easy run. There's a huge difference between how you run easy miles versus how you race. I actually experimented with this today. I recently got a Garmin Foot pod, which is a sensor used with a Garmin 305 GPS device when you're indoors and can't use GPS. It also measures cadence. I was running an easy pace today and the cadence was between 150 and 160 steps per minute. For giggles, I tried to keep the same pace but run at 180 spm. Umm, no. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent. Running with those teeny tiny pitter patter steps at a slow pace was really un-natural, and really un-fun. Now, since I haven't run in like 10 days, I wasn't in the mood to try running fast and see what my cadence was, but I know from experience that I race close to 180. Bottom line -- 180 steps per miniute may be optimal for racing, but it sucks for most easy training runs. Just run natural.

This has been one of my biggest pet peeves of all time. 180, 180, 180! It's a general observation!

*snerk* Yeah, I know you we're gonna chime in. I was typing as fast as my lousy skills would allow just so I could get my post in before you.

How is running cadence defined? Is that 180 footfalls per minute, so that each foot touches down 90 times? It's interesting because, on the bike, a cadence of 90 or so is generally desirable. That would be the equivalent to 180 footfalls per minute. Herr Armstrong spun in the 100-110 rpm range... did

How is running cadence defined? Is that 180 footfalls per minute, so that each foot touches down 90 times?

Yep. In fact, my Garmin foot pod actually measures in rpms. I averaged between 75~80 rpms during today's easy run, (but muliplied by 2 to be consistent with the discussion). MTA: Damn, Scout beat me that time.

hey, we're all different. some of us get injured a lot, some don't. i've run and raced for 30 years now, and i still tinker with basic things, like cadence, diet, training, etc. three years ago i worked hard to increase my cadence from a "natural" 165 up to 180. most of the older runners i train with had a higher cadence than i had. why? speed is simply the product of cadence times stride length. with increased stride length comes larger forces on your legs. i started to feel those larger forces in my legs as more aches and pains. of course i was also turning 40. so i decided to experiment with increasing my cadence, with the idea that decreasing my stride length would reduce the stresses on my joints and ligaments. resultsfor me have been undeniably positive: two marathon prs (hopefully number three this weekend), and a higher level of training than i've had in many many years. 180 is not a magic number, but a ball-park value. the fastest master's runner in tucson races at about a cadence of 200. it's insane. it's also insane how fast he is, at 55; he was listed in running times last year as one of the best masters runners in the us. if you look at races on tv, you'll see many elites who have higher cadences than 180, but very few who have slower cadences. is there physics behind 180? what determines your cadence? one idea is that when you lift your heel off the ground in your stride, you want it to fall back to the ground just using gravity, not using your muscles. using the "average" heel lift, and the time it takes gravity to bring your foot back to the ground, you get something close to 180 strides per minute. try this on a treadmill: set the speed to some constant value, then play with your cadence. bring it down to something ridiculously low, like 120 strides/min, and see how high your heels come up, and how much force you exert on your legs. up your cadence to something faster, and see how things feel. john wooden's quote comes to mind: it's what we learn after we know it all that matters the most.

I can only recall one time that I counted, it was on the left foot. I was stuck on a treadmill for physical therapy....

And obviously not drum corps.