Is cadence of md-160s at 6:30 pace too low?

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

Here is the video. Abdi has that quicker stepping action and Mo is just power. I am not critical to Abdi, but I personally believe pursuing cadence and increasing that stepping action what Abdi probably displays is not optimal. Mo with his stride might just quicken his cadence by reducing the power in each step, but if we think of skipping up and down, we would not focus on the cadence, but choose a cadence based on what feels most effortless. I think that is exactly the same in running, but running is just much more complex than just skipping...

cadence???? wrote:

I'm actually slightly shorter than average (5'6) with a long torso.

You must really be jumping from step to step. As long as you're not injured, you should be fine. Not sure how you can change how you run naturally or whether you even need to.

I was just thinking are you sure your cadence is measured correctly? It might be a glitch in your watch. Check for a confirmation with another watch.

Moo G wrote:

I was just thinking are you sure your cadence is measured correctly? It might be a glitch in your watch. Check for a confirmation with another watch.

I wondered this too. I see cadence numbers on my Garmin but have no idea how accurate they are. I assume they measure arm swing, but I am sure there are instances where the arm swing is not a perfect 1:1 ratio with stride.

I normally use a chest strap with run dynamics and I think based on the few times I run without it that just the watch is less accurate. The run dynamics HR strap is accurate. I think the watch will under estimate my cadence. Not 100% confirmative on this though

cadence???? wrote:

6:30 is roughly my current 15k race pace. Also my cadence on easy runs is around high-150s.

If it is too low, how should I increase it? Btw, I do have a bouncy loping stride and I do have some hip problems, so I think it may be worth working on.

Some bullet points for y'all...

1) 180 is a number that seems to work for elite guys, when they race. But they dont train at 180... when they go slower that number is lower... when they do speedwork is higher

2) Cadence is irrelevant. How fast you run depends on how much ground you cover with every step, which depends on how much force you put on the ground. While one should aim for a quick turnaround and low contact time, what only matters is force, knee drive and ability to "cycle" the legs, and they determine how much ground you cover (and incidentally also where you strike)

3) Guys with unnatural high cadence and limited knee drive because of that are bound be unable to improve in covering more ground with every step

If you want to have an idea of what technique, look in slow motion at how sprinters run. The gist is the same, with some adjustments

cadence???? wrote:

6:30 is roughly my current 15k race pace.

06:30 min/miles or /km?

cadence depends on speed, forget that 180 BS

sloppy units wrote:

cadence???? wrote:

6:30 is roughly my current 15k race pace.

06:30 min/miles or /km?

cadence depends on speed, forget that 180 BS

miles. Strangely enough, if I run really slow like 6:30/km, I can actually get my cadence up to high 170s pretty easily.

cadence???? wrote:

stop looking at numbers wrote:

Are you injured? No? Then don’t worry about it.

Unfortunately I do have hip bursitis that keeps coming back, so I'm wondering if working on my cadence would help.

Your injury is the compelling reason to try tweaking your cadence. Your slightly lower cadence is likely making you land slightly further ahead of your torso than is ideal for you. But it’s also possible that your hip injury is because of other issues like a heavier foot strike and tweaking that might suffice. And it’s also possible that your hip injury is just because of overtraining and you need to rest or reduce mileage or slow down for some time.

Outside of injury, there isn’t a good reason to obsess about whatever cadence your body naturally picks for you.

KAV wrote:

2) Cadence is irrelevant. How fast you run depends on how much ground you cover with every step, which depends on how much force you put on the ground. While one should aim for a quick turnaround and low contact time, what only matters is force, knee drive and ability to "cycle" the legs, and they determine how much ground you cover (and incidentally also where you strike)

Cadence is very relevant for speed because how fast you run depends on two things: how much ground you cover per step x how many steps per unit time (or cadence). Most runners tend to increase (decrease) both cadence and stride length as they go faster (slower). Nothing else except cadence and stride length matters for speed except to the extent that they influence one or both of those two variables.

runne wrote:

KAV wrote:

2) Cadence is irrelevant. How fast you run depends on how much ground you cover with every step, which depends on how much force you put on the ground. While one should aim for a quick turnaround and low contact time, what only matters is force, knee drive and ability to "cycle" the legs, and they determine how much ground you cover (and incidentally also where you strike)

Cadence is very relevant for speed because how fast you run depends on two things: how much ground you cover per step x how many steps per unit time (or cadence). Most runners tend to increase (decrease) both cadence and stride length as they go faster (slower). Nothing else except cadence and stride length matters for speed except to the extent that they influence one or both of those two variables.

cadence is the output, force is the input. learn that and you'll run faster, dont and get stuck at aiming for 180. good luck

I don't want to push you either way, but gait changes will shift around the stresses on your various tissues (bone, muscle, and tendon), so do approach this with some care.

If you do decide to work on cadence as an already established runner, then I would urge you to change cadence gradually -- perhaps 5-10spm at a time. Also, drop mileage and intensity while you adapt. I'd also get some input from a physio who can talk about how it fits in with your hip problems, and to give you strength and conditioning exercies to support the process. There is every chance you'll be putting more strain on some tendons than before.

Think of gait changes as a "trade-off" rather than a "quick win".

Mo Farah if i recall correctly was measured at a 160's cadence during his 10K Olympic heyday.

cadence???? wrote:

stop looking at numbers wrote:

Are you injured? No? Then don’t worry about it.

Unfortunately I do have hip bursitis that keeps coming back, so I'm wondering if working on my cadence would help.

Trochanter area?

Too slow. Practice 180 and you'll be faster unless you have some abnormal body.

I've recommended this a few times on here for various reasons, but I feel a bit more confident now that it's worked for me and a friend now.

Try running a little barefoot, it forces you to have better form.

My advice is this: On your next easy day, do a mile less than you're planning on doing, and at the end take off your shoes and run a couple hundred meters on a concrete sidewalk. Probably not more than 400m. It shouldn't hurt, you should just go at your easy pace and enjoy it. Don't focus on your cadence, just look afterwards to see what it is. If that cadence was the same as your cadence for the rest of your run, then you probably don't need to change anything. If its closer to 170, then maybe think about adding some more barefoot running into your training (Mile warmup and/or cooldown on the grass barefoot, barefoot strides, even full barefoot runs if you really want to build up to it).

Personally, I set my mile PR when I was doing the most barefoot running I've ever done (~80% of my total mileage including workouts). I was only not running barefoot on some recovery days and the first half of my long runs. I also set my 5k PR (and was probably in the best shape of my life) when I was doing almost the most barefoot running I'd ever done (~60% of total mileage, but I was also doing 25% more mileage total than when I set the mile PR a year and a half before).

Disclaimer: Don't push it if you've never run barefoot before, you probably have muscles that are a bit underdeveloped from wearing running shoes and even though it may feel good, running for a even mile or two right off the bat could lead to you getting injured.

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Mo Farah if i recall correctly was measured at a 160's cadence during his 10K Olympic heyday.

There's hope for me yet then

cadence???? wrote:

6:30 is roughly my current 15k race pace. Also my cadence on easy runs is around high-150s.

If it is too low, how should I increase it? Btw, I do have a bouncy loping stride and I do have some hip problems, so I think it may be worth working on.

Too slow. Work towards 175-185 and you will not be racing 5k at 6:30 pace anymore.

Something doesnt add up.

Cadence of 160spm

6:30 mile pace

At 5'6"

???

Also the guy who said Mo Farah has a cadence of 160 is capping. If you search any source, anyone who has measured it will give you a cadence of 190-210 depending on what distance we're looking at Farah racing in. Certainly not 160. No elite distance runner does 160.

Your cadence is like the "gear" youre in. 160 is probably too low and if you want to go faster at some point you should learn to run at a higher cadence. You can certainly keep driving in that gear at any speed, but at some point youre better off switching gears.

It'd be interested to see your vertical ratio (ratio of vertical oscillation to horizontal movement per stride) since thats a good indicator of efficiency.