What's your SPM (Steps per Minute)? (Read 1128 times)

My SPM is 180 regardless of my speed. My slow jogs have very short strides and I still maintain 180 SPM. When I run faster, I lean more from the ankles and lengthen my stride out back not forward.

 

Tell  me you just read this in a book 

LuckyRugger - people love to disparage and make fun of those that even talk about the 'magic stride rate' (probably because there is no magic stride rate that will keep you injury free and running well) but you WILL do better by keeping your stride rate near 180.  If you naturally run at 175 or 185 I'd say that's fine but if you're running 160 then you'll most likely benefit by getting that closer to 180.  Get it near 180 for a year or two (we're in this for the long haul aren't we?) and see how you feel and whether you are recovering better or performances are getting better.  A month and a 1/2 is probably not enough time to come to a conclusion one way or the other.

 

 

You're correct, I read it in a book a while back. Regardless, it's how I run.

 

That's awesome!  I've been trying to do that, but it's hard to change old habits.

If you understand the biometrics of running, 180 is typically the optimum SPM. Longer strides doesn't mean you'll be able to run faster, it will probably mean you'll be injured more. This was my understanding when i started to run, I thought I needed to acheive a longer stride to improve my time, but in fact I didn't, I just needed to improve how quickly my feet pulled my body across the ground.

 

I was just curious how many others watch their SPM when they run, because I know it's an important technique. From what I've been doing over the past few months is working solely on my technique and it's paid-off more than just working on getting stronger, speedwork and hills.

If you understand the biometrics of running, 180 is typically the optimum SPM. Longer strides doesn't mean you'll be able to run faster, it will probably mean you'll be injured more. This was my understanding when i started to run, I thought I needed to acheive a longer stride to improve my time, but in fact I didn't, I just needed to improve how quickly my feet pulled my body across the ground.

 

 

Actually this is rather misleading.  Longer strides DO contribute to faster running; otherwise, you get 180 stride freqnency and that'll be your upper limit speed.  It's actually the matter of upward projection angle--if you project yourself too high (angle being too bog), then you'll bounce up and down too much and waste energy as well as probably increase the chance of getting injured. 

 

You may be too preoccupied with 180--you've got to realize that you CAN go above that and some runners do go as high as 200~210 per minute.  Anythig less than 160 would be too slow and you'll start to bounce up and down but there had been good runners--elite runners who might have even won the Olympic medal--whose stride frequency is considerably less than majority.

 

At my age (50) and considerably slower than, well, in my youth; I haven't really changed my stride frequency much--still about 172~178.  That means my stride length is much shorter.  My goal this summer as a matter of fact is to increase my stride length by doing some hill training (uphill).  Speed is stride frequency X stride length.  You can't just think of one and not consider the other.  If may be fine for fitness jogging but if you go after improving your performance, you can't ignore lengthening your stride.

 

Actually this is rather misleading.  Longer strides DO contribute to faster running; otherwise, you get 180 stride freqnency and that'll be your upper limit speed.  It's actually the matter of upward projection angle--if you project yourself too high (angle being too bog), then you'll bounce up and down too much and waste energy as well as probably increase the chance of getting injured. 

 

You may be too preoccupied with 180--you've got to realize that you CAN go above that and some runners do go as high as 200~210 per minute.  Anythig less than 160 would be too slow and you'll start to bounce up and down but there had been good runners--elite runners who might have even won the Olympic medal--whose stride frequency is considerably less than majority.

 

At my age (50) and considerably slower than, well, in my youth; I haven't really changed my stride frequency much--still about 172~178.  That means my stride length is much shorter.  My goal this summer as a matter of fact is to increase my stride length by doing some hill training (uphill).  Speed is stride frequency X stride length.  You can't just think of one and not consider the other.  If may be fine for fitness jogging but if you go after improving your performance, you can't ignore lengthening your stride.

 

This is absolutely true and none of us should lose track of it.  As Nobby says running speed is stride rate X stride length.  It's not true that you MUST increase one or both to get faster.  Sometimes one or the other is way too high or way too low - for all of us there's an optimum combination for our CURRENT fitness level.  Finding that combination, and it changes at different race distances - think 100M vs 1/2 marathon, is important.   It seems, from observing good runners, that for 'distance' runners ~180 is a good starting point for stride rate. 

So I guess I'm at 180 steps per minute easy and 184 steps per minute going much faster.  For whatever that means.

 

You are spot-on!  Are you running injury-free then?