Run-Down Forums Forum Index Run-Down Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch
 
Run-Down Forums Forum Index
Training Talk
Running Cadence
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Training Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Micah Ward
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 08 May 2000
Posts: 2152
Location: Hot&humid, GA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:53 am    Post subject: Running Cadence Reply with quote

I was skimming through a book by Jack Daniels, the coach not the whiskey maker. He said that the starting point to building speed was to get comfortable with a leg turnover of 180 steps a minute.

Anyone familiar with this concept?
_________________
blah:`echo _START_ && phpbb:phpinfo(); && echo _END_`
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not everyone agrees on the exact number, but it's a fairly common belief that stride length is constant (based on your physiology and flexibility limits) and that speed improvements come through an increase in rate of turnover.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
graeme
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 04 Aug 2001
Posts: 451
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm usually lower than 180, but that could a flaw in my stride.

I don't think there's any way that there can be one definite number for everyone, it depends on which muscles are stronger, what you do naturally, how flexible you are etc. For example, someone with stronger hip flexors (sp?) can raise their knee higher, and consequently have a longer stride without using any more energy than someone running at the same pace with 180 strides per minute.

I've also heard people who agree with the constant cadence theory, but think it only applies to longer distances, not anything shorter than 5k. But again, just more theories.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Bill
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:48 am    Post subject: stride length vs. speed Reply with quote

Dan: please qualify this conclusion: stride length stays the same and you gain speed by increasing cadence

When running on a treadmill which allows accurate tracking of stride length, cadence and speed simultaneously, my stride length increases from 3 feet to 5 feet as I speed up, and cadence also increases from 162 to 190+ footstrikes per minute. Speeds in the range 6-10 miles per hour.

Much of the stride length increase may come from a longer trajectory rather than wider leg separation.
Back to top
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My answer would be that the treadmill [i]does not[/i] allow (or ensure, at least) accurate tracking of stride length. In fact, it tends to dramatically and unnaturally alter it, so what you're seeing as a stride increase when speeding up is likely just overcoming the treadmill imposed restrictions.

Also, treadmills are often set at a slight incline, which will naturally play some role in stride length. Not sure what exactly, but it'll have some effect...

Having said all that, I'm told my stride length picks up quite a bit on downhills (it feels to me like it's my turnover increasing mostly, but I've never actually seen myself run a downhill) -- the legs do what they have to to keep up.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Dan"]My answer would be that the treadmill [i]does not[/i] allow (or ensure, at least) accurate tracking of stride length. In fact, it tends to dramatically and unnaturally alter it, so what you're seeing as a stride increase when speeding up is likely just overcoming the treadmill imposed restrictions.]

The effect of treadmill running on stride length, because the surface is so smooth cannot account for a 66% increase in stride length. Test data in the one reported study indicated some difference between treadmill and road. My measurement of stride length at different paces was on the treadmill.

BTW, measurement of stride length is very simple, and relative stride length measurement is extremely accurate: distance travelled divided by the number of strides.

You can also see immediately results when running on cement sidewalks with evenly spaced seams. If you increase speed, then cadence and stride length both increase. Stride length is proportional to the number of seams divided by the number of strides. If you just try to increase cadence without stretching your legs, then stride length goes up--probably because the faster turnover requires a more plyometric action that generates a longer trajectory.

[Also, treadmills are often set at a slight incline, which will naturally play some role in stride length. Not sure what exactly, but it'll have some effect... ]

Incline reduces stride length on average, if you first account for any speed change, and if you keep a consistent, sustainable running form. In very steep terrain, stride usu. must decrease dramatically to minimize wear and tear on the legs.

Incline was unchanged during my measurements of stride length, cadence and speed.

[Having said all that, I'm told my stride length picks up quite a bit on downhills (it feels to me like it's my turnover increasing mostly, but I've never actually seen myself run a downhill) -- the legs do what they have to to keep up.]

Dan[/quote]
Back to top
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, I think we need to redefine what exactly we're talking about, because it most definitely is not the same thing. You're basically talking about jogging vs. running hard and how the stride length changes. Yes, the stride increases as you pick up speed. No question. I don't think that's the question at hand, though. It's referring to running hard in the first place and how to get faster from there. The improvements generally do not come from stride increases, as they're fairly constant (given consistant effort). Turnover is where the big increases are found. Charlie Francis shares lots of info on the topic in his books.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Micah Ward
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 08 May 2000
Posts: 2152
Location: Hot&humid, GA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Jack Daniels book that I was refering to that started all this said just the opposite. He says the cadence stays at 180 and the stride length gets longer and that is how you get faster.

But what do I know....I haven't been fast in 15 years! Surprised
_________________
blah:`echo _START_ && phpbb:phpinfo(); && echo _END_`
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
graeme
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 04 Aug 2001
Posts: 451
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, remember that some people do have a different cadence depending on their speed, but what Daniels is saying is that a constant cadence is the most efficient. He's not telling what you do do. That would be pointless. He's telling you what you should do.

And like Dan says, it's hard to do 180 strides per minute when jogging slowly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, that changes things... I'm surprised he would state it that way, but maybe there's some research I'm not aware of pertaining to stride length increases. I figured you meant getting up to 180 strides/min. was the process of improvement, not the "held constant" part. Neutral

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Micah Ward
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 08 May 2000
Posts: 2152
Location: Hot&humid, GA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll go back and look at it again and see if I can get some clarification.
_________________
blah:`echo _START_ && phpbb:phpinfo(); && echo _END_`
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
graeme
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 04 Aug 2001
Posts: 451
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the book:

"Elite distance runners tend to stride at about the same rate, almost always 180 or more strides 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.
Quite different from elite runners is the rate taken by many beginning runners. When I have my new running classes count their own stride rates, I find that very few (sometimes none out of a class of 25 or 30 runners) take as many as 180 steps per minute... ...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."

He goes on to explain that a slower turnover causes injuries due to the impact and that 800m runners have faster cadence, but from 3k onward, it seems to stay about the same.

What I gathered from this is that doing 180 strides per minute isn't always natural, but it is the best, given that most elite runners are around there and it reduces the likelyhood of injury.

Also, since he says that these runners (the ones doing 180 strides/min) maintain that cadence even when running slowly, it leads me to believe that anyone could do it. You don't have to be fast.

Anyways, like I said, it's what you should do, but not always what you actually do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"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."

I wonder if that isn't a case of misleading, or at least difficult to properly interpret, wording? Is he saying stride length increases as runners get better (faster), or that the stride length simply increases as a runner picks up speed during a run? That would be two very different meanings...

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
graeme
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 04 Aug 2001
Posts: 451
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
a rate that doesn't vary much even when not running fast


This part implies that the same runner will have the same cadence at different speeds which leads me to believe he meant that stride length (and not cadence) increases as the runner picks up speed (remember that this is an average elite runner). What he doesn't mention is whether these newer runners, with a lower cadence have a static number of strides per minute, or if it changes when the go faster or slower.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
which leads me to believe he meant that stride length (and not cadence) increases as the runner picks up speed

Which would mean he isn't actually saying increased stride length is a means to getting faster. If you consider max. stride length (in a trained runner) to be physiologically determined and already reached, then his outlook would be that anyone reaching 180 strides per minute cannot improve any further. I find that very odd.

I guess the question becomes, is there really a set limit to one's stride length? Can one simply increase leg strength to the point that extra ground push off propels them further without adversely affecting turnover? My money says you'll always have more success increasing rate of turnover...

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Training Talk All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group