12345

High cadence at slow pace (Read 396 times)


Not dead. Yet.

    I've read enough articles now about how running with a higher cadence is more efficient, so I decided to give it a try.  I got my 620, and have been experimenting with trying to increase it.  At the same time I've been working on slowing down on my easy runs.  I've had some success with each, but not so much when trying to accomplish both at the same time.  It seems almost automatic that when I increase my cadence, my pace increases.  I can stay slow with a high cadence for a few seconds, but as soon as my concentration wanders, I find that my pace has quickly increased maybe 30 seconds per mile.  Significantly.

     

    So I got to wondering if it is even worth it to try to increase my cadence at these slow speeds.  Will it help to learn to run like that at slower than race pace?  Maybe I should just work on cadence when I'm doing intervals, tempos and races...ie. faster paces?   Or should I just keep doing what I'm doing and trying to increase the amount of time I can hold the cadence at slow pace?

     

    Additionally, consciously trying to increase my cadence is not going to put any kinds of bad habits into my stride, is it?  I don't want to mess up anything that's working; I just want to squeeze every bit of economy I can out of my running.  It seems easier to work on economy than to run more miles.  

    How can we know our limits if we don't test them?

      Don't try to make a big jump at once. If you want to work on it, just try a few more bpm at a time, not jumping from 155 to 180 or whatever. That's asking for injury.

       

       

      My cadence remains pretty much the same running super slow or race pace so I don't think it necessarily changes as pace does.  Though, I think the best way of getting to you most efficient cadence is really to run more. If you're not running a lot, it might adapt naturally.

      Current Weight: 160 lb

      Goal Weight: 130 lb

       

      Nov9 -- Peachtree City 50K/25K!   http://ultrasignup.com/register.aspx?did=27700

        +1 to this.  Maybe some strides or form drills can be a good thing, but intentionally trying to change your cadence directly may not be the best solution.

         

        Though, I think the best way of getting to you most efficient cadence is really to run more. If you're not running a lot, it might adapt naturally.

        "When a person trains once, nothing happens. When a person forces himself to do a thing a hundred or a thousand times, then he certainly has developed in more ways than physical. Is it raining? That doesn't matter. Am I tired? That doesn't matter, either. Then willpower will be no problem." 
        Emil Zatopek

          Increasing your cadence will always increase your speed unless you are decreasing your stride length.  As previous response says, go a little at a time.  Pay attention to how you change your stride length.  Don't force anything.  Repetition is key.  If you change with small increments, over time the new cadence will seem natural.  At that point, it will be ingrained and you will just have to focus on stride length to generate more speed or less.  I did this a while back and now circa 180 spm seems like second nature.

            I think when you are running easy is the best time to work on running with a fast cadence.

            Runners run.


            Not dead. Yet.

              Alright.  In small increments and don't force it.  Thanks.

               

              I'm adding mileage very slowly, so I guess I'm just trying to squeeze a little more out with this.  Plus what else am I supposed to do with the data this new device records?

              How can we know our limits if we don't test them?

              sport jester


              Biomimeticist

                Running at a higher pace cannot be more efficient. More steps (read muscle firings) per mile by definition will increase energy consumption per mile, which is that absolute last thing any distance running athlete wants.

                 

                Its impossible to find any viable study which proves otherwise.

                 

                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16195026

                 

                Note the words "decrease of running economy" as the byproduct in choosing to run this way.

                 

                Its a complete con job to fall for it..

                 

                Don't...

                Experts said the world is flat

                Experts said that man would never fly

                Experts said we'd never go to the moon

                 

                Name me one of those "experts"...

                 

                History never remembers the name of experts; just the innovators who had the guts to challenge and prove the "experts" wrong


                Gang Name "Pound Cake"

                  Running at a higher pace cannot be more efficient. More steps (read muscle firings) per mile by definition will increase energy consumption per mile, which is that absolute last thing any distance running athlete wants.

                   

                  Completely wrong of course like most of what you say. There is a reason most road bike racers use geared bikes and not fixed gear bikes. Try going up a steep hill in 10th gear on a bike and you will understand that a lower gear and higher turnover results in more hill climbing efficiency. The same is true in running. For hills, shortening the stride and increasing the turnover results in more efficiency in climbing the hill. The same is true on the flats where there is a specific "gear" or turnover rate that is most efficient. For the average long distance runner, that "gear" is 180 steps per minute. Most elite long distance runners are pretty close to that rate and they are among the world's most efficient runners (excepting Nigerian female-water-carriers and ostriches of course).

                   

                  I have found this to be true myself - when I run close to 180 spm, my heart rate tends to go up, but so does my pace at the same time that perceived energy expenditure goes down.

                  - Scott

                  2014 Goals: First Marathon - BQ2016 <3:40 (3:25:18) - 1/2M <1:45 - 5K <22:00

                  2014 Marathons: 05/04 Flying Pig (3:49:02) - 09/20 Air Force (BQ 3:25:18) - 11/01 Indianapolis Monumental

                  zonykel


                    Running at a higher pace cannot be more efficient. More steps (read muscle firings) per mile by definition will increase energy consumption per mile, which is that absolute last thing any distance running athlete wants.

                     

                    I'm assuming you mean cadence and not pace? Cadence is number of steps per minute. Pace is minutes per mile (or km). In any case, your statement is not correct 100% of the time. For any one individual there is an "Optimal Cadence" that gives you the best efficiency. Having a "Lower Cadence" or "Higher Cadence" will be less efficient. You'll have a "U"-shaped curve, like the one below:

                     

                    I borrowed it from http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Cadence. The original source is from a study called Shock attenuation and stride frequency during running.

                     

                    The last part of your statement is not correct 100% of the time either. A long distance runner (or any runner) will try to maintain the fastest speed that he/she can sustain for the entire race. That does not equal the most efficient running speed/cadence. If you're trying to empty the tank to run your fastest, then efficiency is not a primary concern.

                     

                     

                     

                     

                    Its impossible to find any viable study which proves otherwise.

                     

                     

                    The above study clearly shows that it's not impossible. If someone is running with a "Lower Cadence" compared to his/her "Optimal Cadence", then this person is not being as efficient as possible.

                    sport jester


                    Biomimeticist

                      Ok, so I used pace instead of cadence...

                       

                      The real joke is how easy it is for so many to fall for such a pathetic con job.

                       

                      The only measurement that the 180 step per minute BS can claim to improve is vertical lift. That's what defines it's "perceived" improvement and why only fools will use it. You can't find me one study that says altering horizontal motion decreases energy consumption. If it were truly a more efficient way to run, then heart rate would decrease for the same speed, not increase as anyone with an IQ higher than my shoe size should expect.

                       

                      Every high speed running athlete, regardless to how many legs they have all utilize maximum stride lengths in their gait turnover cycle. None of them shorten their stride length to increase in speed.

                       

                      But then again as I've said it before: its a choice of it being a more comfortable way to run, not faster. The longer the distance, you can maintain a more steady pace.  But then again your primary goal is to finish a race and feed your egos, not to earn your living.

                       

                      That's the joke of striving for maximum stride length; not only does it increase speed, but greater running comfort is its natural byproduct.

                       

                      The only way any athlete can propel themselves forward is by having maximum ground contact time to generate enough force to increase speed. That's accomplished by having the slowest turnover rates possible to maintain their chosen speeds.

                       

                      If your goal of running a race is to enjoy the vacation event it is for you, then fine.

                       

                      I choose to write for those who want to actually win the race...

                      Experts said the world is flat

                      Experts said that man would never fly

                      Experts said we'd never go to the moon

                       

                      Name me one of those "experts"...

                       

                      History never remembers the name of experts; just the innovators who had the guts to challenge and prove the "experts" wrong


                      A Dance with Monkeys

                        The real joke is how easy it is for so many to fall for such a pathetic con job.

                         

                        I see what you did there. Well done. Well done.

                        jimmyb


                          i've experimented with the 180 strides per minute cadence at slow paces on the treadmill. The stride has to be shortened to do so once i get below a certain speed. Heart rate always goes up when I increase to 180 from (e.g.) 165, even though I'm going the same pace. Therefore, I'm working harder to move at the same pace. When I run naturally, I run below 180 at slow paces, and above 180 at fast paces, as high as 195. I can't stride long enough to keep at 180 when I'm running at 5k pace or higher. So, after that experiment, I decided it wasn't for me, and I wasn't going to force that on my natural way of running.

                          Log    PRs

                          jmctav23


                          2/3rds training

                            giant steps are what you take; walking on the moon.


                            Gang Name "Pound Cake"

                              The only way any athlete can propel themselves forward is by having maximum ground contact time to generate enough force to increase speed. That's accomplished by having the slowest turnover rates possible to maintain their chosen speeds.

                               

                              If your goal of running a race is to enjoy the vacation event it is for you, then fine.

                               

                              I choose to write for those who want to actually win the race...

                               

                              http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/ground-contact-time-and-running-performance

                               

                              You are wrong. Maximum ground time is called walking not running. The above link points to studies showing the opposite of what you claim. Minimum contact time is the goal If you want to run fast.

                              - Scott

                              2014 Goals: First Marathon - BQ2016 <3:40 (3:25:18) - 1/2M <1:45 - 5K <22:00

                              2014 Marathons: 05/04 Flying Pig (3:49:02) - 09/20 Air Force (BQ 3:25:18) - 11/01 Indianapolis Monumental

                              jmctav23


                              2/3rds training

                                 

                                You are wrong. Maximum ground time is called walking not running.

                                 

                                but walking is the most efficient way of doing it!!!

                                12345