Stride frequency and pace

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if you should run hard enough to be at 180 all the time? I'm sure the concensus here would be to run however you feel on the day and not worry about counting your strides. However ... Jack Daniels indicates that your cadence shouldn't change all that much at different paces. This means a shorter, quicker stride even when 'jogging.' It might be something to think about when going easy--good form and light, quick steps--but effort level should probably be your guide.

My training has been very stagnent lately. My stride count is all over the place depending on my pace. I'll just try to get it more consistent and see what happens. Thanks.

stride rate not a function of effort...it should be pretty much constant over any speed, to oversimplify

So if my stride rate is way down on slower pace days, what does that tell me? I'm running too slow? Not enough effort?

In addition to stride rate, one issue is ground contact time. You can run at 180 steps/min but if your foot spends more or less time on the ground, you will run slower or faster.

I recall a paper from Journal of Applied Physiology several years ago on this topic, but the name of the researcher escapes me. I am sure a PubMed search will turn up the reference and an abstract.

There is no specified number of steps per minute. Everyone is different. You should do whatever is comfortable for what you are trying to accomplish in your workouts.

The optimal stride rate is between 180-200 steps/min

Stride rate will vary a little with different speeds, but not that much. If yuo use 180 when running intervals or threshold pace stuff, it may be 4-6 steps per minute less when gong on an easy run, but mainly when going slower you just shorten the stride length and keep the rate. I remember counting out top female marathoner on the treadmill and had the following stride rates -- 7:00 pace = 182, 6:00 pace = 184 and 5:00 pace (faster than marathon pace) = 190. So 40% increase in velocity as a result of only a 4.4% increase in stride rate (the rest has to be stride length). Slowing down a great deal when running slower usually menas you afe pretty beat

Just the kind of info. I was seeking. Thanks, Coach.

The number of strides per minute will be different for everyone. At slower speeds it doesn't differ much, just keeps to a comfortable cadance but at higher speed it changes a great amount. When tested on a treadmill I went for 160 at 7 minute miling, 170 at 6 min, 185 at 5 min and a big jump to 203 at 4 minute miling. I would have a long stride so my cadance is a bit lower. Everyone is different, I don't know why so many books tell you to count your stride. More likely if you force your stride pattern to change will will be working at a less efficent profile.

I think Jack Daniels knows a little more about this than you.

Daniels is a great physiologist but the stride length you choose has more to do with the area of the force/velocioty curve you need the work at. Peter Cavanagh at Penn State did work in the early 80's regarding stride length and oxygen cost and found that most people freely choose the best stride for themselves. There are alot of factors that effect what stride length is best for you at a given speed. What is right for someone is not right for another, one size doesn't fit all. 180 steps per minute may be good for you but not for another, hence don't count your strides unless you know what is best for YOU and secondly if you have been running for long enough you are probably using the best cadance for yourself already.

I don't think Daniel's is always right. There are people who are different. The body tends to find the most efficient way to do things especially with lots of practice. So I'd say run a lot and your body will find its sweet spot, maybe your cadence will pick up maybe it won't. But trying to forcibly alter something like that has caused me problems and I would just let it do what it must.

I am surprised this debate is still going on. I saw xlr8r's post and thought "Great another - 'Everyone is different...Listen to your body...Do what is comfortable' post." The same type of rationale people use when saying they only need to run 40 miles a week to be a world class marathoner. Everyone loves the idea of being an outlier. Seeing Jack Daniels reponse gave me hope that people would see the light, we would all say thanks, and proceed to be smarter and faster runners.

The problem with people "doing what is comfortable" is that they don't necessarily know what is good for them. You ever look at your typical recreational jogger? A lot of them look really comfortable with awful form and even worse PRs. Unfortunately, bad habits are easy to learn and quickly become something that is comfortable.

In Daniels' Running Formula (and correct me if I am recalling it incorrectly), but I believe you measured stride frequency of a bunch of runners at the 1984 Olympics. They all were around 180. And you already referenced the threadmill test you did with the runner at various speeds.

To the person with a stride frequency at 160, there are two possible scenarios, you are a big time outlier or your stride frequency is too slow. I'm guessing the later. When I had been running for a couple of years, I was annoyed with having no leg speed. I wondered if I took shorter strides (therefore increasing frequency) on my normal runs that my racing and legspeed would benefit. At first it felt a bit awkward as I was more comfortable before. However, it ended up paying off a lot and soon became what I was comfortable with. I have passed this along to others who had similar issues and they also benefited.

Stride frequency, posture, and arm swing end up being questions of your overall running form. Running Times had an interesting article a couple months ago highlighting Sammy Kipketer's running form. In this latest issue, a runner wrote in saying he starting following the advice to run like Sammy. It was evidently already paying him dividends. Although he was 42 and a "life-long runner" he had spent those years running inefficiently and his performance suffered.

Not just listen to your body and run however it feels most comfortable? Train form and skill just like you would in playing the piano, improving your posture, shooting free throws, or doing yoga? Imagine that.

-Short-term studies will of course find that runners find their "optimum" because a higher stride rate is typically an ACQUIRED skill. So a guy clunking along at 160 will of course be inefficient when forced to 180. Just as a guy who never trains speed will be measured as "less efficient" when forced to run faster than his "comfort zone".

-an overlooked aspect of high stride rate is the lessened impact=lower injury rate.

Excellent.

Good point "a miler", people will of course be more efficient at what ever stride frequency they run most at. I think I am still a believer in the extent the human body will tend to the most efficient execution of a skill over time. I have a really long stride (slow frequency) and know am so inefficient over longer distances and get injured a lot and even though I have speed don't have a high turn over rate. Maybe my stride is too long, so will give it a try running with shorter stride length for my easy running, see what happens. However, the 180 people you talk of I am not too sure of. Your stride frequency does change as the speed increase and changes greater at faster speeds. If the 180 came from counting from LA 84 then those guys were going at 4.30ish miling, so using that number for people?s 7 minute miling has to be viewed with caution. However, would running at a greater frequency for your easy runs increase frequency when you go to run faster or would you have to drop down to 400m training like Coe did? I see the injury prevention view all right as a very valid one.

Very true. I think adaptation is key. A few years back I checked my cadence I found that I tended to be in the low 160's on easy runs, increasing to 180 or so at 5k race pace, and 185 to 190 at 1 mile race pace. I then decided to see if I could change this after reading DRF. Initially, running an easy workout at 180 felt ridiculous. I was obviously very inefficient as it seemed like I was bouncing all over the place. I kept at it to the point where doing mid 170's felt normal (over the course of months). I then decided to try running at low 160's again, and lo and behold, it felt like I was doing bounding exercises! I still find 180 to be too fast for me on easy runs, but that may be from years of repetition not to mention somewhat older legs. This little experiment didn't change my race cadences though. Still around 180 for 5k. The real question is, did it make me faster? I don't really know as there are too many other variables.