I use to be around 160ish bmp and just switched over to 180 because of PT recommendation. I miss my old running style. I felt so free and relaxed. Now when I run, I feel more out of breath and tired. Has anyone encountered this feeling when switching form up? any advice?
Don't worry, you'll soon be injured and will have plenty of time to rest.
BPM? BMP?
Do you mean strides per minute or heart rate?
I assume it must be strides per minute. The 180 is just one of those collective wisdom myths that runners repeat ad nauseum. Stride rates vary a lot. One thing I have noticed though, is that lots of runners don't use their feet properly, they don't know how to push off, thus limiting stride rate and length.
A new stride frequency (higher or lower than you are used to) will naturally feel awkward and less efficient—it IS, after all. While research has shown that increasing your stride frequency by 5-10% will have a negative impact on your running economy, presumably because you are running in a way you are not used to, they have also shown that you are decreasing the forces that have to be absorbed by your legs each step. While it has not yet been demonstrated directly, high stride frequencies are likely to reduce your risk of an overuse injury, all else being equal. Anecdotally, many coaches have also noted that their healthiest, most efficient runners tend to have light, quick strides, while their chronically injured runners tend to take long, loping strides.
In my own experience, it will probably take at least a few weeks to feel like you are running normally again. Ideally you'd ease your way from 160 (an exceptionally low stride frequency, by the way) up to 170-180 over time instead of all at once, but now that you've started doing 180, you might as well continue.
Also, this probably won't impact your performance at race-relevant speeds because almost everyone increases their stride frequency to 180 or more when actually running fast.
Northern Star wrote:
A new stride frequency (higher or lower than you are used to) will naturally feel awkward and less efficient—it IS, after all. While research has shown that increasing your stride frequency by 5-10% will have a negative impact on your running economy, presumably because you are running in a way you are not used to, they have also shown that you are decreasing the forces that have to be absorbed by your legs each step. While it has not yet been demonstrated directly, high stride frequencies are likely to reduce your risk of an overuse injury, all else being equal. Anecdotally, many coaches have also noted that their healthiest, most efficient runners tend to have light, quick strides, while their chronically injured runners tend to take long, loping strides.
In my own experience, it will probably take at least a few weeks to feel like you are running normally again. Ideally you'd ease your way from 160 (an exceptionally low stride frequency, by the way) up to 170-180 over time instead of all at once, but now that you've started doing 180, you might as well continue.
Also, this probably won't impact your performance at race-relevant speeds because almost everyone increases their stride frequency to 180 or more when actually running fast.
This. Try to ramp up slowly. You might run at 170-180 for a minute, then drop back to your normal 160 for a minute. Gradually build up the time you are running at the faster cadence.
Also, jumping from 160 to 180 is a bit too much. Try to go to 170 for a while, then to 180.
You will feel tired at first because it is new and you are adapted to it.
Eventually, you will run at 180-ish even when doing a slow jog.
You will also find a "sweet spot" that's just about right for you. I find that 180-186 feels right, while 192 is tiring.
Try the faster cadence during intervals.
stick with it. "striding" = braking. might feel good but you own't reach your potential running like that. some "rules of running form" from a great thread:
1. land, as much as you can, on your forefeet.
2. footplants directly under or behind the frontal plane of your body.
3. don't extend the knee and don't plant that heel out in front.
4. short, fast stride rate, with all the propulsive action taking place directly under and behind you.
5. never reach forward for more real estate with your feet.
eat up more real estate by increasing the stride rate.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4675394#ixzz2fNWzY6CP
Whatever happened to "just run baby"?
Northern Star wrote:
A new stride frequency (higher or lower than you are used to) will naturally feel awkward and less efficient—it IS, after all. While research has shown that increasing your stride frequency by 5-10% will have a negative impact on your running economy, presumably because you are running in a way you are not used to, they have also shown that you are decreasing the forces that have to be absorbed by your legs each step. While it has not yet been demonstrated directly, high stride frequencies are likely to reduce your risk of an overuse injury, all else being equal. Anecdotally, many coaches have also noted that their healthiest, most efficient runners tend to have light, quick strides, while their chronically injured runners tend to take long, loping strides.
In my own experience, it will probably take at least a few weeks to feel like you are running normally again. Ideally you'd ease your way from 160 (an exceptionally low stride frequency, by the way) up to 170-180 over time instead of all at once, but now that you've started doing 180, you might as well continue.
Also, this probably won't impact your performance at race-relevant speeds because almost everyone increases their stride frequency to 180 or more when actually running fast.
I've never been injured running for a longg time and my stride rate on easy runs can go under 115/minute at 6:30 pace. This isn't true.
Northern Star wrote:
A new stride frequency (higher or lower than you are used to) will naturally feel awkward and less efficient—it IS, after all. While research has shown that increasing your stride frequency by 5-10% will have a negative impact on your running economy, presumably because you are running in a way you are not used to, they have also shown that you are decreasing the forces that have to be absorbed by your legs each step. While it has not yet been demonstrated directly, high stride frequencies are likely to reduce your risk of an overuse injury, all else being equal. Anecdotally, many coaches have also noted that their healthiest, most efficient runners tend to have light, quick strides, while their chronically injured runners tend to take long, loping strides.
In my own experience, it will probably take at least a few weeks to feel like you are running normally again. Ideally you'd ease your way from 160 (an exceptionally low stride frequency, by the way) up to 170-180 over time instead of all at once, but now that you've started doing 180, you might as well continue.
Also, this probably won't impact your performance at race-relevant speeds because almost everyone increases their stride frequency to 180 or more when actually running fast.
Also see Mo Farah.
I've read that Rupp is more like 187 and Lagat's stride rate is almost 200+.
Is there a diagram as to what these steps would look like?
There are some youtube videos on forefoot running. That's probably going to help you more than a diagram.
I would also recommend that you try switching to a 4mm heel-drop shoe like the Saucony Kinvara. I switched to forefoot running years ago and I still have some difficulty forefoot striking in a normal heel lift shoe. (Normal=10-11mm heel lift.)
The Skechers GoRun Ride 2 might be another choice because the beveled heel makes it harder to heel strike.
"just switched" ??
there is your problem. pretty silly to 'just switch' and expect good results.
take a few weeks, maybe even months, and increase your turnover... then it will feel natural
lots of drills you can do that will help you increase your cadence.
fisky wrote:
There are some youtube videos on forefoot running. That's probably going to help you more than a diagram.
I would also recommend that you try switching to a 4mm heel-drop shoe like the Saucony Kinvara. I switched to forefoot running years ago and I still have some difficulty forefoot striking in a normal heel lift shoe. (Normal=10-11mm heel lift.)
The Skechers GoRun Ride 2 might be another choice because the beveled heel makes it harder to heel strike.
...to finish my suggestion here. I'm not saying you have to switch to forefoot to run 180, but you'll probably find that you'll land forefoot, mid-foot (almost flatfooted), or very lightly on the heel. Regardless, shoes that discourage hard heel strike will help.
bumbojumbo wrote:
I've read that Rupp is more like 187 and Lagat's stride rate is almost 200+.
Cadence depends on pace. For everyone. So yes, Olympic runners almost always have cadence above 180 when they're racing (i.e. running at faster than 5:00/mile). And the vast majority of them have cadence slower than 180 when they're running at "ordinary" mileage pace like 7:00/mile.
http://sweatscience.com/cadence-in-elite-runners-increases-as-they-accelerate/Before you start messing around with your cadence, make sure to check what it is "naturally" at a bunch of different paces, not just mileage pace. You'll probably find that once you get faster than tempo pace, it's already at or above 180. If so, don't worry about what it is when you're jogging.
Jeez this thread is stupid. No-one should be artificilly altering their stride rate to suit some mythological ideal stride rate.
There is nothing magical about 180 not for any runner.
- wrote:
I've never been injured running for a longg time and my stride rate on easy runs can go under 115/minute at 6:30 pace. This isn't true.
My uncle smoked two packs a day and lived to 95!
My uncle smoked heavily, had a low stride rate and also managed to live until he was 97. Although he had emphysema and chronic shin splints.