Why can't I get my stride rate to 180/min.?

shorten stride slightly?

how fast do you run your runs? you really shouldn't be going 180 strides per minute if you're just coasting at 7:00+/mile

how fast do you run your runs? you really shouldn't be going 180 strides per minute if you're just coasting at 7:00+/mile. Think how inefficient that would be. Your stride length would be so crazy short

llamarunner wrote:

how fast do you run your runs? you really shouldn't be going 180 strides per minute if you're just coasting at 7:00+/mile. Think how inefficient that would be. Your stride length would be so crazy short

Agreed. Stride rate depends on the speed, your inseam, leg weight, shoe weight, and body mechanics.

llamarunner wrote:

how fast do you run your runs? you really shouldn't be going 180 strides per minute if you're just coasting at 7:00+/mile. Think how inefficient that would be. Your stride length would be so crazy short

Wow, you nailed it! Yeah, I am going about 7:00 min/mile on my runs. I read somewhere that 180/min should be done at all paces. Can you please explain why it is inefficient? I thought limiting your time in the air saved one energy?

sand is bad wrote:

I started focusing on my stride rate about two weeks ago after learning that 145 strides/min. is not very efficient. I can maintain close to 180/min at the start of my runs, but it diminishes down to around 160/min toward the end of my runs. Why is that? Is it just going to take time? Is it because I'm getting tired toward the end of my runs? Help?

Seriously? You are doing only about 72 cycles per minute?

You are almost certainly overstriding for your speed - I used to have this habit and stride around 80-85 per minute in slower runs. I found that I improved this by incorporating some uptempo stuff (e.g. a few strides) every single run, and especially by doing lots of hills. I'm not around 90-95 and feel way more efficient.

Speed drills. Got mine up to 250. Elite sprinters can do 270-280.

Its a function of fast twitch %, but really anyone can get it up to 220 or so. If you can't do 220 you have awful turnover and its something you should consider strengthening.

lol

Bull crap.

your Cadence shouldn't change with speed that much.

I run in the 180 range for all my runs no matte what speed.

J.R. wrote:

Agreed. Stride rate depends on the speed, your inseam, leg weight, shoe weight, and body mechanics.

Well, sure, of course. Different things work for different people.

1) If you're a longer-legged runner, your most efficient running at a given speed is *likely* (not absolutely always--there are other factors involved) to be at a somewhat slower tempo than that of a shorter-legged runner (of roughly the same ability), running at the same speed. That just stands to reason.

2) Doesn't the "magic" number of 180 steps/minute--i.e. precisely three steps/second--seem a little suspicious to you? Doesn't that seem just a little too convenient?

[It reminds me of what they used to say about Gerschler-Reindell's interval training: "get the pulse up to 180, then let it return to 120." Sorry, it just seems unlikely that human physiology would conform so neatly and precisely to an arbitrary division of the planet's daily rotation period...]

Jack Daniels was the guy who perhaps did the most to popularize the 180/minute concept. But I clocked one of his runners in a cross-country race, and she was at 200. Didn't seem to hurt her efficiency--she won Nationals the next week--and whaddaya know, she was a short-legged individual.

3) All that said: it's unusual for anyone to be running at his greatest efficiency if he's below 150 steps/minute, even at 7:00/mile.

I agree with the suggestions about including a bit of faster work throughout the training cycle; in particular, including a few pickups/striders, a couple days a week, can help develop/maintain an efficient tempo at faster speeds. (When doing these 100m accelerations, a distance runner should focus on gradually increasing tempo--turnover--rather than on lengthening the stride.)

But I think the biggest help (for most) in developing an efficient turnover that's *closer* to 180 is developing leg strength--even if that seems nonintuitive. Yes, hills help with this; but doing leg press (or squats) on a couple of nonconsecutive days/week may be more useful for those who don't have good leg strength to begin with:

a) Start with light weights *and proper coaching* to make sure your technique is correct and safe. For one week, just include one set of 10-15 reps per session; then spend two weeks doing two sets/session; then move to three sets. You should be gradually increasing the amount you lift, consistent with maintaining good form.

b) After spending three weeks on sessions with three sets of 10-15 reps, move to doing a single set of 10-15, mostly for warmup, and then two "work" sets of only 3-5 reps. Continue moving up your weights (while *constantly being monitored for proper form*)--you'll find that you can get to a very substantial level of resistance on the low-rep sets.

Do NOT plateau/stagnate at light weights, or focus on doing more reps--the greatest benefit comes from higher intensity, NOT more reps!

c) Ideally, you should do a few of the abovementioned accelerations *after* your leg-strength session. The high-intensity resistance work "wakes up" your legs' neuromuscular motor units; then the pickups teach those units to fire in a smooth, efficient, coordinated sequence.

Because you're using the accelerations to teach yourself a new movement skill, ideally you should do them when fresh. That means complete recovery between repetitions; it also (ideally) means doing them *early* in your training session.

That could mean a few minutes' warmup activity (jog or bike or whatever); then lifting, if you're doing it that day; then the pickups; and THEN the bulk of your training, whether an easy run or track work or whatever.

[Once the new movement pattern has been well learned, you can maintain it by doing strides at the end of easy runs; but while you're still learning to handle a higher tempo with relaxation and efficiency, you should try to do the "learning" work when fresh.]

--lease

I run a 220 to 250 stride rate at all paces, 12 minute miles, 10 minute miles, doesn't matter.

Have you tried running in place as a drill? It is surprisingly effective and trains you to get the feel of how fast this turnover really is. 60 sec run in place/30 secs rest for total of 5 mins just before your run. Talk to me in two weeks.

J.R. wrote:

llamarunner wrote:

how fast do you run your runs? you really shouldn't be going 180 strides per minute if you're just coasting at 7:00+/mile. Think how inefficient that would be. Your stride length would be so crazy short

Agreed. Stride rate depends on the speed, your inseam, leg weight, shoe weight, and body mechanics.

Your stride rate should not vary much across different speeds. In walking, pace is a combination of stride rate and stride length. However, in running a pace change will be more related to the force of push off rather than how far you can reach your leg or how quick you can move them.

There was a study done (don't know the source) that calculated average stride rates for elite runners at race pace. Results showed values close to 180/min for events ranging from 800m to marathon.

Bottom line: your cadence should increase as you go faster.

There is however, some real truth to the 180 rule of thumb. It came from counting strides of olympic marathoners. Watch Rudisha's WR 800m runs. Count his cadence on the first lap. It's darn close to 180 too (second lap it goes up to over 200 even though he slows down which tells you what's happening to his stride length during the race).

My take on this data is that for runners between 800-marathon, it's a good idea to have your cadence approximately equal to 180 at the race pace of your target event.

are you legs like 3 inches?

checkthisout wrote:

http://sweatscience.com/cadence-in-elite-runners-increases-as-they-accelerate/

Bottom line: your cadence should increase as you go faster.

Not necessarily. I did look at the linked study but I think "accelerate" is the key word there. Your stride rate may increase for a while as you accelerate but I'd bet it slows down to whatever rate you're used to as you settle into whatever new pace you run at.

It's funny the op brought this up because I just made a post about it on Runner's World right before this thread was started.

Perhaps he/she saw my post.

Perhaps the world doesnt revolve around you.

checkthisout wrote:

There is however, some real truth to the 180 rule of thumb. It came from counting strides of olympic marathoners. Watch Rudisha's WR 800m runs. Count his cadence on the first lap. It's darn close to 180 too (second lap it goes up to over 200 even though he slows down which tells you what's happening to his stride length during the race).

My take on this data is that for runners between 800-marathon, it's a good idea to have your cadence approximately equal to 180 at the race pace of your target event.

You are correct that Rudisha does about 180 (he has an INCREDIBLY long stride), but that hardly makes it the magic number. Daniels is flat out incorrect that 180 is the SPM # that nearly all world class runners hit. He may be right that very few do less than that (though there are some), but there very large differences between individuals at similar paces. do you know what Webb and Manzano hit when running Rudy's pace? At lead 230. Do you know what Lagat was hitting when he was running 50 pace at the end of his 3k the other night? Over 230. Do you know what some little female asian marathoners' hit for the whole marathon ? well over 200. Noah Ngeny when running a mile? ~215. And on and on it goes (these are just people I've counted myself) So it does not matter what distance or what gender we are talking about, but you will find runners from 170-240 spm.

Now sure, the faster the pace, *usually* the quicker the cadence, but not always. (and usually the longer the stride too. I think most people increase both when going faster, and stride length is increased even more was suggested by Coe/Martin). But again, individuals are different. A recent post by Steve Magness concerned a study looking at Bekele, Sihine, and a Kenyan in, I forget, one of his last world champs 10k's. They each had different stride patterns, with some holding stride frequency the same as they increased speed, but increasing length, and some increasing turnover, but not length much. They were all different as far as changes in stride length and ratio were concerned when kicking the last 400 meters.

So no magic numbers really. But 170/180 is the lower end of the spectrum, that usually includes runners with long legs and powerful strides. So yes, if this guy is 150, he could likely do better with a little faster cadence.

I run on treadmills a lot, which lends itself to robotic over-analyzation

I count stride rate on the mill sometimes - it is a quick and dirty way of calibrating mills with each other that intuitively seem differently calibrated. I once made a chart that extrapolated stride length using spm and speed and one speeds up by a combination of increasing cadence and stride length by counting strides at various paces during a progression run that started very slow and finished very fast.

On a treadmill, I take 156 spm at easy paces and 170+ at tempo paces.

The idea that everyone should take 180 spm just because elites do is confusing cause and effect. My wife is not very fast by letsrun standards and I have watched her turnover at 190+ a minute on a mill - she is very short. It could be that people who naturally have higher stride rates tend to be more efficient, not that forced emulation is the best for you. I am 6'4" and could never turn over at 180 spm. People have their own unique quirks, asymmetries and inefficiencies and have probably naturally found the economy that allows them to function. Some people just have wasteful economy and if they change it something else is throw out of whack.