12345

High cadence at slow pace (Read 389 times)

sport jester


Biomimeticist

     

    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.

     

    Oh princess,

     

    Once again, using uncle billy bob's analysis simply doesn't cut it for me...

     

    You claim some idiot's blog as your "proof" to my being wrong? Oh please

     

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23681915

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364480

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24002340

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23806876

     

     

    Which of course goes to my basic statement; that if you want to truly (and most of you sadly don't) want to be a faster runner, then learning to be a more skilled walker would go much further towards your goals than whatever uncle billy thinks...

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22341011

    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

    JimR


      Folks, feeding trolls only keeps them around.

       

      Don't worry about your pace when working on cadence.  Work on your cadence as a drill on it's own, it will find it's way into your regular running.

        While some of y'all are jumping on the troll bandwagon, I have to say that more often than not, there is a significant grain of truth in what Sport Jester writes, and this is a prime example.  Like it or don't, believe it or not, a "High cadence at a slow pace" is both stupid and counter productive.

          Like it or don't, believe it or not, a "High cadence at a slow pace" is both stupid and counter productive.

           

          So sayeth you? Okay then. Glad that's settled.

          Runners run.

          JimR


             Like it or don't, believe it or not, a "High cadence at a slow pace" is both stupid and counter productive.

             

            As a drill?

               

              As a drill?

               

              Speaking strictly for myself, why on earth would I train in a way I would never-ever employ in any other kind of a run (either training or racing)?  I subscribe to the philosophy of, "Runners run", and screwing around with non natural cadences is just silly, IMHO.

                  Like it or don't, believe it or not, a "High cadence at a slow pace" is both stupid and counter productive.

                 

                So when you posted this you meant it for yourself?

                 

                Does taking your logic of what comes naturally apply to all sports?...Swimming...we'd all be doing the dog paddle. There is a place for techniques.

                 

                I agree that working on a faster turnover is important and the best time to do this is on easy runs...then after a few months take it to the track. I'm sorry, I don't have any pubmed links that are irrelevant.

                www.hplg.net  The Human Powered League - Solo Cup Series - Trail Building

                   

                  Speaking strictly for myself, why on earth would I train in a way I would never-ever employ in any other kind of a run (either training or racing)?

                   

                  So by that logic any kind of stretching, plyos, weightlifting or a host of other activities that runners do are also useless?

                   

                  And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-natural" cadences. If a runner is slow as shit, then isn't fast running also "non-natural" to him or her? So training to get faster is just silly too?

                   

                  It has been observed that a cadence of about 180 is pretty common among almost all really good distance runners, almost regardless of how fast they're running. Well respected people--including Jack Daniels but not just him--have surmised that this is most efficient. And just the fact that most good/experienced runners tend toward that 180 cadence is a pretty good indicator to me that people either figure out that +/- 180 is most efficient, or they get injured and wash out of the sport.

                   

                  It's not that a faster cadence is always better, it's that 180 seems to be about ideal. And it turns out, a lot of newer runners--particularly those who are picking up running as adults, after years of being sedentary and overweight, start out with a turnover that is much slower than that. If a person has a cadence of a lot slower than 180, say 150 or 160, there's a pretty good chance they are over striding and are landing with too much force and are headed for injury. It would make sense for them to work on a faster turnover/lower impact. Doing this at easy paces as a way to train the neuromuscular system makes sense to a lot of runners not named shipo.

                   

                  IMHO.

                  Runners run.

                     

                    So by that logic any kind of stretching, plyos, weightlifting or a host of other activities that runners do are also useless?

                     

                    And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-natural" cadences. If a runner is slow as shit, then isn't fast running also "non-natural" to him or her? So training to get faster is just silly too?

                     

                    It has been observed that a cadence of about 180 is pretty common among almost all really good distance runners, almost regardless of how fast they're running. Well respected people--including Jack Daniels but not just him--have surmised that this is most efficient. And just the fact that most good/experienced runners tend toward that 180 cadence is a pretty good indicator to me that people either figure out that +/- 180 is most efficient, or they get injured and wash out of the sport.

                     

                    It's not that a faster cadence is always better, it's that 180 seems to be about ideal. And it turns out, a lot of newer runners--particularly those who are picking up running as adults, after years of being sedentary and overweight, start out with a turnover that is much slower than that. If a person has a cadence of a lot slower than 180, say 150 or 160, there's a pretty good chance they are over striding and are landing with too much force and are headed for injury. It would make sense for them to work on a faster turnover/lower impact. Doing this at easy paces as a way to train the neuromuscular system makes sense to a lot of runners not named shipo.

                     

                    IMHO.

                     

                    +1.

                       

                      So when you posted this you meant it for yourself?

                       

                      Does taking your logic of what comes naturally apply to all sports?...Swimming...we'd all be doing the dog paddle. There is a place for techniques.

                       

                      I agree that working on a faster turnover is important and the best time to do this is on easy runs...then after a few months take it to the track. I'm sorry, I don't have any pubmed links that are irrelevant.

                       

                      No, my logic doesn't apply to all sports, just running.  Why?  Because running is something the body does naturally unlike swinging a bat or catching a ball.

                       

                      As for cadence, the discussion here is "High cadence at slow pace", not "High cadence at high pace".  Do I think a high cadence is important when running a sprint or amping up the speed when overtaking or nearing a finish?  Yes.  Do I think "High cadence at a slow pace" will help high speed running?  Not a chance.

                       

                      IMHO, the best way to increase your higher end speed is to work hills.

                      JimR


                         

                        Speaking strictly for myself, why on earth would I train in a way I would never-ever employ in any other kind of a run (either training or racing)?  I subscribe to the philosophy of, "Runners run", and screwing around with non natural cadences is just silly, IMHO.

                         

                        There's a difference between things that are natural, and things that are just bad habits that we've developed.  And frequently what feels natural isn't the best way to proceed, even for an individual.  A natural action may very well be full of bad execution and counter-productive.  I suffer from a low cadence, and experience tells me it's not the best way for me to run.  That doesn't mean that I try to increase my cadence everytime I run, that won't work.  But what I can do that helps is just run occassional drills with a high cadence, it helps reinforce the action for me and it will find it's way 'naturally' into my other runs, and most importantly, races.

                           

                          So by that logic any kind of stretching, plyos, weightlifting or a host of other activities that runners do are also useless?

                           

                           

                          Here's another area where I more less agree with Sport Jester, yes, I think those other activities are "useless" when it comes to enhancing ones ability to run faster/further.  That said, I don't think such activities are "useless" from a holistic approach to general health.

                           

                           

                          And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-natural" cadences. If a runner is slow as shit, then isn't fast running also "non-natural" to him or her? So training to get faster is just silly too?

                           

                           

                          A slow runner running slowly is more than likely to be running a natural cadence.  When I say a "non-natural cadence" I'm talking specifically about the topic of this thread, and IMHO, there is nothing natural about a "High cadence at slow pace", errr, unless one is climbing a steep hill, but that is a completely different story.

                           

                           

                          It has been observed that a cadence of about 180 is pretty common among almost all really good distance runners, almost regardless of how fast they're running. Well respected people--including Jack Daniels but not just him--have surmised that this is most efficient. And just the fact that most good/experienced runners tend toward that 180 cadence is a pretty good indicator to me that people either figure out that +/- 180 is most efficient, or they get injured and wash out of the sport.

                           

                           

                          I couldn't agree more, there is nothing "High" or "non-natural" about a 180(ish) cadence.

                           

                           

                          It's not that a faster cadence is always better, it's that 180 seems to be about ideal. And it turns out, a lot of newer runners--particularly those who are picking up running as adults, after years of being sedentary and overweight, start out with a turnover that is much slower than that. If a person has a cadence of a lot slower than 180, say 150 or 160, there's a pretty good chance they are over striding and are landing with too much force and are headed for injury. It would make sense for them to work on a faster turnover/lower impact. Doing this at easy paces as a way to train the neuromuscular system makes sense to a lot of runners not named shipo.

                           

                           

                          "If", that is the key word in your statement above.  I don't believe I've ever seen a runner, young, old, fat, slow, whatever, run at a pace which was both significantly under 180 AND where they were over striding.  The flip side is I've seen plenty of just getting started runners run at a slow cadence and a very slow pace, and, so far at least, in every case, as said runners relative fitness levels improved, their natural cadence gravitated toward the 180 zone with no other "high cadence at slow pace" training.

                           

                          Long story short, I believe you and I are, by in large, saying the same thing.

                             

                            There's a difference between things that are natural, and things that are just bad habits that we've developed.  And frequently what feels natural isn't the best way to proceed, even for an individual.  A natural action may very well be full of bad execution and counter-productive.  I suffer from a low cadence, and experience tells me it's not the best way for me to run.  That doesn't mean that I try to increase my cadence everytime I run, that won't work.  But what I can do that helps is just run occassional drills with a high cadence, it helps reinforce the action for me and it will find it's way 'naturally' into my other runs, and most importantly, races.

                             

                            What makes you think you suffer from a slow cadence, and what kind of condition are you in?

                             

                            FWIW, I consider a "High cadence" to be anything significantly higher than 180; if you're working your way up to 180, then nothing about your cadence would be considered "high".

                            JimR


                               

                              What makes you think you suffer from a slow cadence?

                               

                               

                              Experience.

                                  

                                As for cadence, the discussion here is "High cadence at slow pace", not "High cadence at high pace". 

                                Jack Daniels, amoug many others noted that the running cadence in top level runners didn't vary regardless of the pace, even in the final kick of the race.

                                 

                                And exactly what running does the body do naturally...400m pace, Marathon pace...I see lots of runners out there with a form that looks nothing like natural.

                                www.hplg.net  The Human Powered League - Solo Cup Series - Trail Building

                                12345