Lower cadence only correlate with slower paces if the vertical force to the ground remain constant. The opposite approach is also possible: keeping the cadence constant, while only adjusting the speed by changing the vertical force to the ground. (The vertical force is the main force affecting the stride length.)
Theoretically possible but extremely difficult in practice, and im not sure a good idea to try. I would argue that aggressively intervening in how we run is risky, and in this case most likely risky to the calf/achilles which is an issue for a number if folks in this thread.
fwiw i have worked on my cadence and it is faster than it used to be, but did notice additional achilles demands
If you think its extremely difficult to have a fairly high cadence while running at an easy effort you really need to practice that more to get your motor skills up. I think that will do you good.
Again, what pace are you talking about? I understand we don’t really focus on pace for easy running, but I think it is relevant for this discussion because if the pace gets slow enough it is quite unnatural to maintain a high cadence. Fwiw my easy run cadence is pretty clearly higher than other people running the same pace. it is noticeable when I am warming up for a threshold session
Again, i have increased my cadence, but there are risks to that, and for most people that takes time
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
I am talking what happens when cadence gets maybe below 165 on roads.
i would be interested to hear from folks who started with a 24m 5k or a 23m 5k if 70” or taller or a 22m 5k if 6” or taller.
I posted the research data as well if someone wants to respond to that
What are you on about? There is absolutely nothing wrong with cadence below 165 on easy runs as long as it natural? I always thought the 200 in cadence thing in this thread was a joke???
I posted an article talking about how lower cadence increases injury risk. They were actually talking about cadence below 170
There Isn't One Universal Number
The 170 steps per minute threshold is useful as a risk floor. But the research is clear that optimal cadence isn't a fixed target that applies equally to every runner. It interacts with three main variables.
Running speed.
Cadence naturally increases as pace increases. A runner at a 10-minute mile and the same runner at a 7-minute mile will have different optimal step rates. The 170 floor applies more reliably at moderate training paces than at slow recovery jogs or all-out efforts. Leg length. Taller runners with longer legs have naturally longer optimal strides. Applying a cadence number designed for shorter athletes can produce its own mechanical inefficiencies. The percentage-based approach (increase by 5 to 10% from your current baseline) is more individually appropriate than chasing a fixed absolute number.
Fitness level and training age.
Newer runners often land with poor mechanics for reasons beyond cadence. Elite runners tend to self-organize toward efficient cadences naturally over time. Where on that spectrum you sit affects how much immediate benefit cadence modification will produce.
This is what the article you posted says. Just like with everything when it comes to running, the answer is not definitive. I used to think that I needed to have 180 cadence on easy runs when I started running because that's what articles online said. I'm 6'1 with longer legs than others who are as tall as me, and I was forefoot/midfoot striker before I tried to force higher cadence. The result was achilles tendinopathy. I stopped this bullsh*t after watching Shura Kitata win London Marathon while heel striking, while I was trying to increase my cadence despite having a perfectly fine stride and no injury problems before forcing higher cadence.
Right,, that’s why I was arguing with the people who said you should just increase your cadence at lower paces. And as I mentioned above, I was aware of the risk of increasing demands on the Achilles. Nonetheless, haven’t you ever run with someone who was slow enough that you just couldn’t run with proper mechanics? I have. It was 12-12:30/mile pace and 8 miles of that on a paved bike path gave me bad shin splints.
I would also point out that there are numerous articles referred robin the review
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.
You can run your easy run at any pace so long as you recover quickly. In my own personal training that pace has to be slow.
I WANT to run faster easy paces, make no mistake about that. But every time I do, my legs rebel. I might get away with it for a week, but it eventually catches up with me. I save the the faster running now for workouts
Again, I’m not suggesting averaging a faster pace. Rather, I am suggesting that a run/walk would work better for many people who are more in the 22-24 minute 5k range, leaving them more recovered by running repititions at 630/km pace with good mechanics x 5 minutes then walking 1 minute intervals as opposed to running 710 pace with worse mechanics and no walk intervals
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.