180 cadence is nonsense. Run natural.

There's an old saying in Arabic "it's a goat! Even if it flies". In our case here- "elites run at least 180 in all workouts, even if they run 165, it's still 180"

Ido, you are correct and have presented your evidence clearly.

In 1:20 in this video Gebrselassie runs at 173 cadence. But I guess he's no elite enough for Daniels.

https://youtu.be/Blju2h3Sedk

Racing speed is determined by your stride length multiplied by your stride frequency. It's a very simple formula that most of you high schoolers can figure out.

Therefore in order to increase your speed you need to increase one or both of the multiples. In simplistic terms if you decrease your stride length by 3% but only increase your stride frequency by 2% in order to reach the magical 180 strides per minute you have in fact run slower not faster.

Does David Rudisha running the 800m have the same stride frequency as a marathon runner? Does a 400m runner have the same frequency?

I do not know the answer but I would suspect they do not.

Correct me if I am wrong I believe the 180 number originally came about for long distance runners not middle distance. Is this correct?

You had potential but a good troll isn't so relentless in bumping their own thread. So I have to downgrade you to 3/10.

180 Doctor wrote:

Racing speed is determined by your stride length multiplied by your stride frequency. It's a very simple formula that most of you high schoolers can figure out.

Therefore in order to increase your speed you need to increase one or both of the multiples. In simplistic terms if you decrease your stride length by 3% but only increase your stride frequency by 2% in order to reach the magical 180 strides per minute you have in fact run slower not faster.

Does David Rudisha running the 800m have the same stride frequency as a marathon runner? Does a 400m runner have the same frequency?

I do not know the answer but I would suspect they do not.

Correct me if I am wrong I believe the 180 number originally came about for long distance runners not middle distance. Is this correct?

Quoted from Daniels book

"During the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, my wife and I spent every day of the running events counting different runners’ stride frequency, often several times for the same runner, during prelims and finals and also early and late in the same race. In all we examined about 50 runners, both male and female and in events from the 800 to the marathon.

Of all the runners evaluated, only one took fewer than 180 steps per minute. Turnover was well over 200 per minute in the 800 and sometimes in the 1,500, but from the 3,000 (a women’s event in the 1984 Olympics) through the marathon, the rate was quite similar and only stride length was reduced as the race distance became longer.

In our lab one time, I tested an Olympic gold medalist in the marathon. At a 7-minute-per-mile pace, the rate was 184; at a 6-minute pace, it moved up to 186; and at a 5-minute pace, it moved up to 190. This represented a 16.5 percent increase in running speed and a 3 percent increase in rate. It is quite clear that runners seem most comfortable with a particular rhythm, and that rhythm varies little as they change stride length to increase speed during different races."

As I have shown by attaching videos of many elites, their cadence drops below 180 when easy running and they are accustomed to different rhythms. Daniels should have checked in his lab more runners. In races obviously the cadence at the elites' speed would be 180 and above. But even that does not always happen, as seen in the 1,500 m rio final- some of the runners at the first two slow laps went below 180.

By the way Rudisha's cadence is around 185 in the 800 but he has a huge stride of about 2.4m,

On the other hand in the marathon and half marathon you find many runners with 190 and above like Kipchoge and Dibaba

Generalize: Stride length and cadence for racing mile vs. for marathon?

Is rudisha's turnover well over 200, like Daniel's quote two posts above? Looks very long and loping.

Big wrote:

Is rudisha's turnover well over 200, like Daniel's quote two posts above? Looks very long and loping.

I counted his steps in his last 500m road race and is like 200+

Dude is insane

what you dont understand is that those slow joe's probably dont sacrifice stride length in proportion to stride rate. Its not as if their natural length at 4:45 is 1.85 meters.

These guys [not talking about the guy in the video, theres nothing wrong with his running] already have choppy strides. Only now they do them at 180 instead of 160 and as a result gain some "natural" speed. So effing what?

Ido wrote:

I say one should not even deal or think about cadence at all. Instead try to improve your stride length by improving your technique and power, not by forcing a bigger stride,

You have it half right.

You shouldn't think about your cadence but you also shouldn't think about your stride length.

We know those are the only two factors in running speed but you do not need to think about any of them at all.

You just have to run and run.

You gain fitness. You gain efficiency.

You get faster. Doesn't matter if you are faster because of improved cadence or improved stride length, although it will mostly be because of improved stride length.

But you do not try to improve your stride length.

You do not work on your technique and power.

You will work on fitness which then improve your technique and power.

The key is don't think about any of this.

Hi Ido, I don't have time to check all your videos, so I picked a random one - the one of Bekele running easy - and I measured him at 80 steps of his left foot in 55.0 - 55.5 seconds, which translates to a cadence of between 173 and 174.

You are right that overstriding doesn't imply heel striking, but that fact is that most overstriders heelstrike. And both are bad.

I'm not sure what you thought my argument was, but all I am pointing out is that for most people, if they learn to "run natural" and improve their form, their cadence naturally speeds up closer to 180 than 160. Of course it depends on the person and the pace.

Just wanted to reinforce that everything Ido has said is right.

Cadence is such a silly thing to focus on. As Ido has shown in videos and as literally any runner ever can prove, cadence fluctuates greatly depending on pace. How can you say 180 is ideal when cadence can easily vary 40 steps per minute depending on pace? Yeah, 180 is probably a decent average but how does that help?

As he has said, focus should be on keeping the legs close to the center of mass. Usually, this will result in a quicker cadence and more of a midfoot strike, which is generally good. However, this usually happens naturally when you just train more. I have never and my training partners have never, ever thought about cadence. We just run.

I personally drop to around 170 steps/min or lower when I am jogging, float around 180 during what I guess you would call a \\\"maintenance run\\\", and, according to my garmin, averaged 193 during a half and 200 during a mile. If I am sprinting all out, it easily goes over 210. The half was under 63 and the mile was under 4, so no not elite elite and obviously slow by Letsrun standards but I think fast enough to provide more evidence that decently fast people run slower than 180 all the time.

Ido wrote:

By saying that cadence and stride are important you haven't said a thing. The most efficient runing is the one you feel the most comfortable, and that's what I said- run naturally. What I hate to see is all kind of people advocating amature runners that run naturally, that is comfortably and relaxed, to shorten their stride in favor of 180 cadence with funny choppy strides that slow them down. The main point is that cadence is a result, an end, and NOT a mean.

I totally agree with this

That video is hideous. The guy looks silly taking such small steps. Like a sandpiper on the beach.

Ido wrote:

https://youtu.be/TDXxtZrJB_Q

Bekele easy runing probably somewhere around 4km per minute at 168 cadence.

I rest my case.

boom

love my garmin anyway wrote:

But the question is: does running 180 spm make you fast, or do fast people run 180 spm? I do easy runs at 160 spm or below, and race 5Ks at 180 spm. Both my stride length and cadence increase as I go faster. I've tried to run with a higher cadence before on easy runs, but I can't do it without also speeding up a lot. Eventually I decided to stop worrying about it and run my easy runs easy and my races at race pace.

my easy runs are damn slow and if I ran 180 cadence I feel like my strides would be 6 inches.

I just can't run 180 unless I'm going extremely fast (for me)

Ido wrote:

You people have a problem in reading. My argument is that the claim that the elites always maintain a high cadence even when easy running and the only thing they change is their stride is a false claim. And I have proven it. I never said anything about avrage. Who cares about avrage. My argument is that all those people that jog and easyrun at 5:00 minutes per km, and force themselves to 180 cadence are fools. Cadence does change acording to your speed!!

I agree with this. Jack Daniels did his testing at an Olympic track meet. Those guys are hauling ass.

No way they run 180 cadence at recovery jogs.

Taken further, show me their cadence at 8:30 to 9:30 min/mile pace. No way it's 180