Has anybody out there increased their stride rate and thus improved their racing times?

I just tried increasing my stride rate on the treadmill at 16km/h for 60mins and even though i managed my HR was 8 beat higher AVG than normal. Should this come down tinman?

rob

Whoa, there! i'm dense, but not that dense. The plyometric suggestion was for the guy who has stated he's got the tempo thing down pat but complained of a stride that was too short. I couldn't even contemplate that kind of stuff for myself right now. I'm sore today in brand new places, most noticeably all around my hips and hams.

In answer to your two questions:

(1) Yes, ive already noticed a difference on the hills; the new running gait works much better on them. In the past, i think i've tended to bound up hills.

(2) It really hasn't brought me up off my heels since i've always been a ball of the foot striker. But i think what i did to counteract the overstriding was to become a "puller" rather than a "pusher." In short, the new motion isn't a minor adjustment. It feels more like a radical overhaul.

Thanks for the encouragement not to overdo it. Except for the longer run 1x p/week, i'll keep my runs in the 3-5 range until my body adjusts.

jtupper wrote:

My wife and I counted rates of about 60 runners (from 800 to marathon, men and women) at the 84 Olympics and reported those results at a conference that next year. We counted the same runners in various races and timed them over known track distances so we could get both stride length and rate. Only one runner was under 180 (178). IN all my years teachng beginning running classes (some thousands of subjects) I always have them count stride rate the first day and have never had one as fast as 180. Seems interesting that novices turnover 160 or so and all the good ones go 180 or more. .

Jtupper,

While I certainly respect your knowledge, I don't think you are being too scientific here. You are comparing the stride rates of experienced runners in OLYMPIC RACES to beginners at a "running class.....on the first day" ?? That does not seem to be a fair comparison.

What if you had taken those beginners, gotten them in decent shape (without any focus on stride rate/length), and then put then in all out 5k? Don't you think their stride rates would have increased a bit? And what if you took those Olympic runners, and measured their stride rates while jogging? Don't you think their stride rates would have gone down a little bit? I do. (maybe the Olympic runners would still have had higher turnover, as you have shown that even in slower paces they keep a fairly high turnover, but the comparison might have been closer).

Points for all to consider:

1) I think many of these ideas about increasing stride rate are useful.

2) Why? Well 2 main reasons:

A) firstly, there are TWO ways to run faster: increase your stride rate or increase stride length. So yes, of couse increasing stride rate will help you go faster (up to a point), and

B) increasing stride rate is typically (for most) EASIER to do than increasing stride length and less costful energy-wise (as Tinman has pointed out). In Cycling, it has been proven beyond a doubt that making small changes (increases) in cadence is less costful energy-wise than small increases in power (what I mean: small increase in pushing a harder gear) at the same pace. Now pushing a heavier gear is not completely analogical to increasing stride length, but they are similar (they both involve using more fast-twitch/power fibers than quicker/easier strides/pedal pushes do).

Lastly, in some triathlon studies, when a comparison was done between run performance after a bike segment in which one etither spun faster vs pushed a heavier gear at the same heart rate, the group that spun faster (higher cycling cadence) did much better in the run portion, seeming to prove two things: the faster cadence was less energy costly, and there was a neuromuscular "carryover" or "memory" effect where the athletes continued at fast cadence on the run compared to the "heavier gear" group who was both slower and had smaller stride turnover on the run.

So...........yes, it is of course completely fundamental and natural for an increased stride rate to help performance, and it costs little energy to increase that rate, and it seems to become hard-wired in your nerves.

BUT.......what about stride length? It maybe be HARDER to improve, and more risky (potentially more injuries could occur), but it is JUST AS IMPORTANT if not more for improving performance.

jtupper: you compared the stride rates of Olympic racers vs your beginner students. Did you compare stride lengths???? I bet your $1,000,000 that the Olympic racers also had longer stride lengths. Why was THAT FACT not significant to you?

Also consider: studies have been done on top age-group runners, and the most consistently LARGE difference found between top young runners and top older runners was STRIDE LENGTH (stride frequency was lower in the older runners too, but not as significantly as the differenes in stride length). Clearly as you age, you lose power and flexibility, and thus stride length. So though it is harder to work on , wouldn't working on Stride Length be possibly even MORE important to becoming faster? I think so.

And....on page 13 of "Training Distance Runners" (Martin & Coe), a graph is listed, showing the "relationship between stride frequency and stride length." To quote:

" As running velocity increases, stride frequency increases, but STRIDE LENGTH INCREASES EVEN MORE, most likely from recruitment off additional skeletal fibers". In the graph, as pace increases from 8 min per mile towards 4 min per mile (and I assume this is averaged date from many top runners), frequency slowly rises. But LENGTH steeply climbs.

Now I know one could argue that aerobic/anerobic conditioning could be the prime reason why top runners can recruit more muscle fibers, and thus use a long stride length for a long period of time, thus arguing that CONDITIONING is the main obstacle to a long stride length, and I would agree in part, but not completely. I am sure that in ADDITION to improved cardiovascular condition, that flexibility training, power training (weights, hills, plyos), and PRACTICING a longer stride length could all contribute towards one eventually being able to use a longer stride length for longer periods of time, and thus go faster.

So in conclusion:

* Isn't it elementary to conclude that a faster stride rate AND/OR a longer stride length would improve one's ability to go faster? Yes

* While elementary, I DO agree that not enough people think about such basic facts of running, and think only about X distance in Y time, without considering the basics of what is effecting such a peformance, and how one to improve it.

* I do agree that stride frequency is easier and safer to work on, so maybe that should be the first part to work on for most

* BUT.....I think that ultimately stride frequency improvements can have an even bigger impact on performance, but tread carefully working on that because of injury risks or potential "over-striding risks" (it is true that way "over-striding" is more energy costly than way understriding)

So work on BOTH.

This is by far the best stride rate thread I have seen,

We should all be aware of factors which affect our stride rate. Running on a track will make your stride longer, because the track is much bouncier than other surfaces. This will slow your stride rate down somewhat, but with practice you can have the best of both worlds - longer faster strides.

Different shoes have the same effect, some shoes are bouncier than others. Also a heavy shoe will slow your stride rate, and a lighter shoe will help to increase your stride rate.

Training on a hilly course is a great way to increase both stride rate - on the uphills, and stride length - on the downhills. Choose a course where the downhills are not too steep so that you can run hard downhill without doing any damage to muscles and joints.

Hilly cross country races and hilly road races also help in this respect.

If you live in a flat area, then use the wind in a similar way. This is obviously easier to do when the wind is constant rather than gusting.

Dont be afraid to run hard into a headwind, you can always put more effort into running hard into the wind than you can on the faster sections and still recover quickly.

Different leg lenghts do affect stride rate. Someone over 6 feet tall will be closer to 180 than a shorter person who is likely to be closer to 190 - 200 or more.

Everone is different though, there is no right and wrong way that everyone must do. The important thing is to experiment and find what works for you.

I took 5 months off from running last July because of a pain I was having in my Tibia and I decided to focus on my Beach volleyball game for the next 6 months working with a Personal Trainer twice a week for 1 1/2 hours per session. He first had me doing some resistance and light weight training and a lot of core work with the Medicine ball and balance ball. He then had me doing plyometric type exercises once my shins started feeling better(Mostly cause I stopped running). I found the plyometrics brought out a lot of my weaknesses as far as coordination, rythm and jumping ability and after about 4 weeks doing plyos my coordination and balace improved amazingly well as well as my jumping ability on and off the beach. I am now running 35 miles a week and feel the strongest I have felt in a long time and I also have the confidence in my ability to move side to side need be, for when all I was doing was runnning I felt I was losing the stability and Agility to do more than run just in a straight line. Also, by my increased core strength it is easier for my to apply the principles that are suggested on this post, most namely running upright. For me this is one of the most important threads I have read in a long time and I am truly excited about what times I will run in the following years as I am working on building up to 65 miles a week over the next 3-4 months which for me will make great things happen. Good Running!

bulldog35 wrote:

I found that working on increased cadence is most easily done on moderate and steep hills and I find it fun and especially when I got to the top of a short steep hill I run up at the end of a beach run I do I was no longer winded at the top and I moved faster. I am excited about this whole cadence, stride discovery and even if someone posted that it doesn't do a damn thing, psychologically it's done a lot for me personally. Good running!

Just in case this comment refers to me, I want to straighten out the record a bit. There are two at least separate issues here. The first is whether most people would run more efficiently right now by just adopting a faster cadence. For this there is experimental evidence suggesting that most experienced runners are pretty close to their most efficient stride rate/length across different speeds. Runners do have more of a tendency to overstride than understride, but both situations occur. This was studied pretty carefully, and I have no reason to doubt their results, but it does not do much for an individual in terms of telling them what to do with their cadence.

In terms of an optimal stride rate, I think it can be pretty hard to extrapolate from elite runners, as Sir Lance-alot argues above. As an example, when dnixon discusses struggling to hit 180-200/min at 9 min pace I have to believe that those are inefficiently short strides. But it seems to work for him, so more power to him. If someone wants to do the math, they're welcome to it.

It is another issue entirely as to whether runners should ratchet up their turnover in order to become more efficient at a faster cadence. While I agree with jtupper that some of what determines the most efficient stride rate might be the amount of training at that cadence, I don't think anyone can say that definitively. Also the fact that most runners tend to overstride compared to their optimal stride length, and the fact that runners tend to increase cadence and overstride less with running experience suggests that your "optimal" cadence is not just determined by your normal gait pattern.

The whole notion of whether this whole balance is driven by preferred stride frequencies or stride lengths is somewhat interesting but probably unknowable. So I'll write it off as a purely academic point with no real world significance.

Now as to whether my "inability to except anything other than scientific studies to explain why certain training methods improve performances is absolutely OUT OF CONTROL" as suggested by Mr. Senior Sales Specialist, I have to say that, despite appearances, I am really not that into science as a tool to guide training specifics. Even in this topic I think there a couple fo good studies that provide some interesting information, but there is ultimately nothing in the science that tells us what to do about running cadence. Turning then to practical experience there is really not that much to hang your hat on besides the relatively high turnover of highly accomplished runners. However the pace differences during training and competition between these athletes and most runners makes comparison difficult and causality impossible to determine. Now if this is just left over bad feelings from the minimalist wars, I only stepped into that scrum to prevent others from misusing scientific findings to make a case for barefoot or minimalist running. As to what footwear any particular individual should wear there is no scientific answer for that, only trial and error. The same may be true for the stride frequency/stride length tradeoff.

This thread is getting long so I may have missed it, but has anyone suggested that the optimal stride rate for "distance" running might be a percentage (although likely not a fixed one) of a runner's maximum stride rate when sprinting? Surely Olympic level distance runners can sprint at a higher turnover than can (relatively well-trained) 20 minute 5K types. Might not this factor influence optimal stride rate for submaximal running?

It would be interesting to see a comparison of elite distance runners' maximum turnover (perhaps measured over the second half of an all out 200) to their selected turnover for distance events. Taking this a step further, one might apply the percentage obtained here to the sprint turnover of recreational runners and see if there is a correlation. Intuitively, someone like me who can perhaps turnover at 225 to 240 for 200 meters would have a slower distance event turnover than someone who approaches a 300 turnover rate.

Dr. Daniels--do you have any data such as this?

could this thread top the thread started by Leonard Luchaine???

seems a subject that is very debateable, so its possible

Sir: Sorry if I misled you. It was not a research study to compare elite Olympians with beginners. I merely had data on both types so put it out there; I still find it interesting that beginners tend to toun over so slowly. I remember a discussion I once had with a biomechanist who said it was interesting how much stride rate was increased as running speed was increased. I begged to differ so to try to demonstrate I had my lab assistant (a decent runner named Joan Benoit) get on the treadmill and run at 7:00 pace. We counted right foot falls which were 92 (we assumed she took as many steps with both feet so doubled that for a 184 count. Then speeded the treadmill to 6:00 pace and got 93 (still assuming that equaled 186) and then 5:00 pace and got 95 (190). So stride rate was increased about 3 % and speed of running about 39%, which leads one to conclude that speeding up is mostly done at the expense of taking longer strides. No doubt increasing stride length is the way to faster time (not necessarily to better economy), but that is certainly a factor of improved fitness, which includes the various things you mentioned -- flexibility, plyos, weights, hills, etc. It's a lot easier to get the stride rate down first and with continued training the length will come

Last October, I started experimenting with barefoot running and landing on the balls of my feet rather than my heels and have increased my cadence.

I've found the following:

1. Don't feel the pounding of tracks as much. (I run mileage on grass and dirt 4-wheeler trails)

2. Feel faster.

3. Knees, shins, etc feel much better.

4. Form is better and more efficient.

I have found the best way to increase your stride rate is to tie yourself to the car and get someone to tow you to the corner.

This is most effective if the Driver is a "HOON' teenager.

Thanks to all of you who have posted on this thread. Especially to those of you who have stayed on topic!

My reason for starting this thread was to figure out if it was worth it for me to put in the effort to increase my stride rate from its current 165ish to a faster mid-180s. I judge success on this topic in only one way, faster race times. Since I have limited training time, I need to be efficient with my training, so I was wondering if anyone else had had success with increasing his or her cadence. In the only two direct responses to my query, both people have posted positive results with increasing their cadence.

Part of my influence on increasing my cadence was that I've read Dr Daniels' info on the Olympian distant runners all having fast stride rates, but even more of an influence than the elites is that the faster people I run with all have shorter strides than I do, but faster cadences. I run with some very fast runners and whether at race effort or during warm-ups and cool-downs every one of these faster runners seems to take much faster steps than I do.

Therefore, I know that both Olympians and local hot shots are running at fast cadences. I know the drills and methods that peoples suggest to increase stride rate. What I do not know is how long it will take me to increase my cadence to the point where it feels natural and how long it will take me become efficient at this higher cadence.

I guess there is only one way to find out if it will work for me. If it does not pay off for a few months or more that is ok, hopefully, it will pay eventually.

I would definitely go for it. It shouldn't take more than a month or 2 to get comfortable with it, as long as you focus on it every single day. The way I kept it in check is I continually counted my cadence throughout each run, otherwise it would slow down big time.

I hear you on running with faster people and their stride rates. That is what made me think about this topic. When I ran for a junior college, all the guys faster than me, except for one guy (he's 6'3) had much quicker stride rates than myself. It really is the way to go. I feel like I can change speeds much easier because my stride rate is already up.

JY wrote:

In terms of an optimal stride rate, I think it can be pretty hard to extrapolate from elite runners, as Sir Lance-alot argues above. As an example, when dnixon discusses struggling to hit 180-200/min at 9 min pace I have to believe that those are inefficiently short strides. But it seems to work for him, so more power to him. If someone wants to do the math, they're welcome to it.

JY: Thanks for your post. This has been a provocative and helpful thread. Please note, however, that what i said is that i counted my stride rate at the END of my first mile (a 9:00 warmup mile) and found it to be only 155. That's what i naturally hit. When i tried to up the tempo, the best i could do was about 170, which certainly shortened my stride, but also took me into the 7:30-45 range.

BTW, i did the math for kicks. At a rate of 180 footstrikes p/min, a 9:00 mile would entail 1620 strides. 5,280 ft / 1620 strides = approx. 3'3" per stride. As a runner who is 6'2" and has long legs, i can't even imagine a stride that short.

Well, if you can imagine 9:00 miles...

I am 6'1", and I worked for a few months to go from ~85 strides/min to ~90-95/min. Great results, especially at longer distances.

This is an interesting thread, particularly for me who has a naturally high cadence compared with most runners. I'd just like to recap some of the main points of the thread, please correct me if I'm wrong.

1) Let's say we have two runners with cadences of 180 and 160 respectively running at the same speed. Is it fair to say, ignoring all other factors, that the 180 cadence runner is somehow more efficient than the 160 runner, i.e. higher cadence is always desirable?

2) For most running conditions, an increase in speed is due mainly to an increase in stride length rather than stride rate.

3) Posters have talked about how you can practise and increase your cadence. Assuming their level of fitness does not change during the transition, it must be assumed their stride length has shortened. As we become fitter however, and faster, our stride length must increase (?). Will this occur naturally as we improve, or is some specific training other than running required to maximise its benefits? Plyometrics were mentioned for example, or is hill work good training for this?

If I am not mistaken there has been only one post in this thread that addresses women, and that only indirectly (it mentioned using Joan Benoit as a subject). From those who have spent some time observing stride rates, do women fall into the same frequency range as men, or do they differ somewhat?

Touché! Good one. Once upon a time i couldn't imagine such a thing, but when you reach 50 and it's early in the morning and you're just warming up, 9:00 feels pretty damn good.

FYI,

I continue to check my stride rate at various speeds. Earlier I posted my rate was 178. That was at about 7:30 pace. This morning I ran at about 6:45 pace for 9 miles, 89% 5k pace, and counted twice and got 200. So clearly my rate increased with speed. I'm hoping to try it during a race if it's possible.

One other thing for those of you who have a hard time keeping track of the count I found a way that's seems to work pretty good for me. Instead of counting 1-10, 20, 30 etc what I do is just keep counting 10's and lift each finger at ten and go across my hand. It works for me.