Running Cadence
894
Member
1057 days
PJT posted 1 year ago.
I've heard 90 for both. I'm OK holding 90 on the bike when I concentrate. My problem is that a 90 cadence run for me feels like too much effort in base training workouts--it's something I need to work on. My HR spikes, so I tend to settle in somewhere below that.
Run cadence is the total number of steps you take in 1 minute, divided by 2. You can count it yourself by using a 1 minute countdown on your watch and stopping when you hear the beep, or Polar has a new HRM that will count it for you (but that costs a LOT).
2563
Member
1222 days
Anton posted 1 year ago.
90 or above for both... Many folks find that to keep a running cadence above 90 that they have to shorten their stride length...which is a good thing. Many people overstride which really causes hell with the hips, knees and almost all the muscle groups of the legs. A short stride allows for quick turnover and less damage....sort of the basis behind things like chi running.
"What would life be if we had no courage to attempt anything?" - Vincent Van Gogh
My Blog: http://anton.trifuel.net
478
Member
1328 days
250
Member
1120 days
Atropos posted 1 year ago.
I'm at about 100 on the bike on average, but around high 80's on the run during base training. Like PJT said, too much cadence on long runs makes my HR too high, though I'm finding that as I become more fit, I can maintain a higher cadence at a lower HR.
[URL="http://lincolnp.blogspot.com"]Sprinting to Ironman
The breakdown that happens at the seven-hour mark often starts 200 meters off the beach
--Gordo
2563
Member
1222 days
Anton posted 1 year ago.
Go out with the bikies and watch the cadence differences. Then go to a road race (running) and watch the other runners around you. Look at the different cadences. Yes,I feel that the best is between 90 to 100 for ME in both sports. But I get passed by 80rpm mashers on the bike and smoked by guys with these long loping strides that I know are way over 90. I use quick turn over and it works well for me... I guess my point is that there is no hard and fast rule and bullocks to anyone who says there is.
There is really only one rule for endurance sports:
Find what works for you.
"What would life be if we had no courage to attempt anything?" - Vincent Van Gogh
My Blog: http://anton.trifuel.net
695
Member
1266 days
Star posted 1 year ago.
Makes sense. Thanks for the info. It'll be interesting to see where I am. I'll have to dig out my watch :rolleyes: Its somewhere in my bike bag I think...
My blog: http://star.trifuel.net
403
Member
586 days
Ironmom posted 1 year ago.
I can easily spin 90 - 100 on the bike, but my running cadence hovers around 83 -84. Any time I try to pick it up higher than that, my HR climbs, even if I shorten my strides. I'm still working on it, but I just might be a slower strider, I guess.
Blue Skies, -Robin-
http://ironmom.blogspot.com/
478
Member
1328 days
kona_expat posted 1 year ago.
Ironmom, did you read my blog post that I referenced above? ANYONE can change their run cadence with the right practice, and it's worth the effort. I seem to remember you wanted to become a faster runner, and increasing your cadence is a no brainer to help you towards that goal. Also see below.
From the book Daniels' Running Formula:
"Elite distance runners tend to stride at about the same rate, almost always 180 or more steps per minute. This means that they are taking 90 or more steps with each foot each minute, a rate that doesn't vary much even when not running fast. The main change that is made as a runner goes faster is in stride length; the faster they go the longer the stride becomes, with little change in rate of leg turnover.
...The main problem associated with a slower turnover is that the slower you take steps, the longer the time you spend in the air, and the more time you are in the air, the higher you displace your body mass and the harder you hit the ground on landing. When you consider that many running injuries are the result of landing shock, it is not surprising that experienced runners tend to turn over faster than do individuals who are new to the sport."
2563
Member
1222 days
Anton posted 1 year ago.
Kona's right IMom...You can make the change...it takes practice and time. It seems counter-intuitive (sp?) "Hitting more often lessens the pounding?" But it does...Keep your feet close to the ground and quick little steps. Try it for just a few minutes at a time on your run and build up (lets your body adjust to the gait change.)
"What would life be if we had no courage to attempt anything?" - Vincent Van Gogh
My Blog: http://anton.trifuel.net
3283
Member
1266 days
RV posted 1 year ago.
A high turn-over / cadence does work. And it does take some time to get used to. Especially as changing the foot strike to a more forefoot rather than a heel strike. I used the Evolution book and DVD from Ken Mierke - it has drills etc to get you up to that pace. Lots of good information as to why it works. I know that I was able to run longer and faster and it was easier on the legs.
RV
It takes a long time to get good. - Scott Molina
Slow is smooth; smooth is fast. - Rich Strauss
403
Member
586 days
Ironmom posted 1 year ago.
I agree in theory that higher cadence is better, I just haven't seen it work yet for me. I started the ChiRunning program almost 2 years ago and have been working on cadence since then (along with the other ChiRunning concepts) and just haven't seen it get easier. Everything else about the ChiRunning form has adapted naturally into my running form and has made running much easier and more fluent for me, but the cadence thing has remained difficult.
I wonder if it has anything to do with body mass. Any Clydesdales care to comment? If you're a heavier runner, does it cost you more to increase your cadence, that it offsets any benefits? I'm curious on that one. All the running books and videos (ChiRunning included) tend to show people who are about 5'9", 135 pounds. For those of us who are more sturdily built, I wonder if the same principles apply. If that 135 pound runner runs with a cadence of 95, and another guy who is 187 (like my very muscularly dense hubby) runs with the same cadence, does it have the same effect? For the guy who is carrying 50 more pounds (even if it is muscle), does the effect of lifting the feet (and therefore that extra weight) more often have any drawbacks? Will it increase his heartrate in a greater ratio over the lighter runner? I have to admit I'm curious on this one. There hasn't been much written about how to run best as a Clydesdale, all the running books seem tailored to people who are already built like runners.
In any case, it's something I continue to work on (I did cadence strides just this week), but I wish it would get easier as all the books seem to promise.
Blue Skies, -Robin-
http://ironmom.blogspot.com/
1056
Member
839 days
UFTriGator posted 1 year ago.
I used to be 185 when I was still swimming (not quite Clydesdale, but definitely not the body of a marathoner). I was also running the 400m every year in the spring, so I had been trained to have a really long stride. As I've (slowly) gotten faster at distance running, I've forced my stride to get shorter and shorter (among other technique changes) and have seen quite a bit of improvement. My 5k went from low 19s to high 16s in only a year. Of course I also dropped 15 pounds out of my back, chest, and shoulders, but I feel infinitely more comfortable running longer than a few hundred meters at a time. Plus, I haven't gotten shin splints like I used to when I was sprinting, even with quadruple mileage.
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
3283
Member
1266 days
RV posted 1 year ago.
I don't know how Chi method works, but Evolution works for me. I'm 6'2" and around 170. I was working on my cadence today. The biggest piece was eliminating the heel strike and landing the mid/fore foot when nearly directly under the body, rather than in front.
RV
It takes a long time to get good. - Scott Molina
Slow is smooth; smooth is fast. - Rich Strauss
After riding the trainer this morning (working on cadence in the mid to high 80's) I went for as 15-minute run. I noticed that my running cadence was also quicker. It may have had to do with the mist and rain :rolleyes: but I think it also had to do with the quick bike cadence. So, what's the story here? I think most people try to keep the bike cadence in the high 80's, but what's a good RUN cadence? And how the heck do I figure out what my run cadence is?
My blog: http://star.trifuel.net