12345

High cadence at slow pace (Read 393 times)

    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.

     

     

    Hmmm, can't say I necessarily buy that as an absolute statement.  Thinking back to all of the races I've run and all the races I've watched, the cadence seems to almost always ramp up a bit during the final kick of a race.  Now, that isn't to say the runners go from say 180 to 220, but I'll bet that as often as not, the cadence may well go from say 180 to 185 or even 190.

     

    Is the increase in cadence significant?  No, probably not.

     

    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.

     

     

    Your point?

     

    If you want to run a fast 400 meter, then run, no need to muck around with one's cadence.

      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.

       

      I believe you have.

       

      I know I have. Lots and lots of them.

      Runners run.

         

        I believe you have.

         

        I know I have. Lots and lots of them.

         

        Sorry, not buying.


        Closed for repairs

          Totally with mikey on this.  I'd say it's the majority. When you are less in shape overstriding is a natural compensation when you feel tired because it feels easier.  If you are a newer runner trying to run a pace it feels easier to stride longer but that runner can't keep the cadence when doing it.

           

          I know for a fact it was that way with me.

           

            Okay, still not buying the over striding issue of overweight/out of shape runners, that said, just to play devil's advocate, supposing what y'all are saying is actually true, are you then suggesting that running at a "high cadence at a slow pace" of say 200+ strides per minute is a good or even superior way to train a runner to run at a normal 180 cadence?


            I've got a fever...

               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.

               

              True, Daniels and many others have observed the 180 cadence for elite runners.   He first measured this while at the 1984 Olympics.  The slowest pace run by any winner at those games was Joan Benoit's 2:24:52 (a brisk 5:32/mi clip).  To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson, being a hobbyjogger and running in the Olympics ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same f***in' sport.  Those were people who didn't go slower than 7:00 pace except on their easiest days.

              My point -- although we like to imitate what the elite do, perhaps cadence data on the best athletes in the world can't necessarily be extrapolated to mere mortals running less than half their speed.  They don't do a lot of studies on really slow runners, but I wouldn't be stunned to discover that 180 might not be very efficient if you're running a 12min/mile or whatever.

               

              I think if you do want to work on cadence, a treadmill is a great place to try.  Belt speed is constant, so you can vary stride rate and see what feels most efficient/natural etc. at a given pace.

               

               

              MTA: Oops, I see this has been covered:

               

              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.

               

              On a treadmill, you will notice a lot of pounding at slower cadences.  Increase your turnover until you are striding lightly, but not straining.

              On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.


              I've got a fever...

                 

                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.

                 

                This is completely backwards.  Overstriders tend to be much slower than 180, because it's more difficult to overstride with high turnover.  Again, go to the treadmill.  At a given belt speed,  slower cadence necessitates longer strides to maintain pace (and not fly off the back of the treadmill).

                 

                I've run with tons of people with <180 who where overstriders.    I've been a runner who ran @ < 180 and was an overstrider.  When I increased my cadence, overstrding went away, and so did a lot of the pounding and injuries.

                 

                Back to the OP, just experiment a little find out what works best.

                On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

                  are you then suggesting that running at a "high cadence at a slow pace" of say 200+ strides per minute is a good or even superior way to train a runner to run at a normal 180 cadence?

                   

                  I can't speak for anyone else, but, no, I'm not suggesting that.

                   

                  Nor am I suggesting that rocks are made out of pine cones. Just to be clear.

                  Runners run.


                  Closed for repairs

                     

                    Nor am I suggesting that rocks are made out of pine cones. Just to be clear.

                     

                    What about hats?

                     

                     

                       

                      I can't speak for anyone else, but, no, I'm not suggesting that.

                       

                      Nor am I suggesting that rocks are made out of pine cones. Just to be clear.

                       

                      So then why are we even discussing "High cadence at slow pace", it's a dumb concept that has no business in a running forum except to say, "Don't do that" or, "You're doing it wrong"


                      Not dead. Yet.

                         So then why are we even discussing "High cadence at slow pace", it's a dumb concept that has no business in a running forum except to say, "Don't do that" or, "You're doing it wrong"

                         

                        Did you even read the original post?  It seems like you have just grabbed on to the title of the post and ignored the comments and questions I had below it.  You just keep repeating that phrase out of context.  First off, when I said "High cadence", I meant 180 spm.  For me that is high.  I'm running at maybe 165 average now.  I'm an admitted newb and was asking the dumb question so that I could understand better.  In my original post you will also note that I mentioned that as I tried to increase my cadence, my pace automatically increased with it.  Since I am also trying to teach myself to slow down, I was trying to figure out if cadence is just always supposed to change with pace.  Seems like there's mixed opinions on that.

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

                           

                          So then why are we even discussing "High cadence at slow pace", it's a dumb concept that has no business in a running forum except to say, "Don't do that" or, "You're doing it wrong"

                           

                          I don't know why you are discussing it, but those of us who believe that most new runners tend to over stride and plod a long with too slow a cadence are discussing it as a drill to become a more efficient / less injury prone runner. I understand that you are not buying that premise, but in that regard you are in the minority.

                           

                          I, like several other posters, interpreted sdizazzo's "high cadence" to mean something approaching 180. Since he referred to lots of articles espousing a high cadence and I am not aware of lots of articles that tout the benefits of a cadence faster than 180, I assumed that 180 is something he considers high.

                          Runners run.

                            This thread is becoming ridonkulous.


                            just a simple cat

                              This thread is becoming ridonkulous.

                               

                              I'm enjoying it also.  

                               

                              I  guess as you get more bodacious, you begin to lose more brain cells, because there is a limit to how much magnificence your body can house


                              Feeling the growl again

                                 

                                My point -- although we like to imitate what the elite do, perhaps cadence data on the best athletes in the world can't necessarily be extrapolated to mere mortals running less than half their speed.  They don't do a lot of studies on really slow runners, but I wouldn't be stunned to discover that 180 might not be very efficient if you're running a 12min/mile or whatever.

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                It is very true that one must be careful extrapolating anything with elites to non-elites, particularly us hobby-joggers.

                                 

                                However, while the speed may be very different in the horizontal axis, the acceleration of gravity is the same for both runners.  For that reason, I would expect that optimal cadence would not vary as much as some may think.

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                                 

                                12345