>General Running>Cadence Training
Well, I'm sufficiently confused by your posts that I'm just going to drop out of this thread. You seem to have started this discussion with the intent of arguing that runners shouldn't go out with the goal of achieving a 180 stride rate and/or that runners shouldn't forgoe other workouts exclusively for turnover drills. Um, ok. No one ever said they should. Even Daniels -- in his famous study from which the 180 stride rate for elite athletes was first identified -- says that sub-elite runners have a more economy at stride rates slightly below 180. And I'm still looking for the expert who you imagine suggesting that cadence drills are the most important workout; I kinda suspect he doesn't exist.
The Logic of Long Distance
My experiment did raise one semi-serious question though: what happens to my strides per minute rate at faster speeds? Alternatively, to get faster - to run my sub-20:00 5-K - does that strides per minute pace have to change? In other words, does running faster mean a faster cadence? Longer strides? What? Or will I find that even running a 400 at interval speed (and, of course, it has to be a 400, you know), even running sub-6:00 pace, that my strides per minute won't change?
JK's got a sub-18:00 5k in his near future. Within the next 18 months. You heard it here first.
I think what happens when you get faster is you are pushing off with more relative force per step without working harder to do so, but your stride rate stays the same. So yeah, your stride is longer but you are not striding longer if that makes sense--it's just that your center of mass (how's that for a physics term?!) travels farther in between footstrikes.
You'll ruin your knees!
""...the truth that someday, you will go for your last run. But not today—today you got to run." - Matt Crownover (after Western States)