Running Cadence / Stride Length Inconsistencies Among Athletes

Don't worry about it, especially for easy runs.

Short downhill sprints focused on turnover may help with cadence and running form. I believe180 strides per minute is an observation, not a rule. Every runner is different. My personal turnover ranges from about 175 during a long run to 195 during a 5K, over 200 in the mile and about 240 in a sprint.

The runner I'm most concerned with has a cadence of 165 no matter what.

I have him running a 4x1000 tomorrow so I will see if there is any difference there.

It's really not something I've brought up to my athletes because I'm not sure if it's even an issue. Without the watches I don't think I would have ever really thought about it.

Only really an issue if he has injury problems. If not, then don't worry. If he does, then he needs to increase his stride frequency. 180 is not a magic number but higher stride freq means less impact and active forces stressing your body

guess. if a runners cadence increases with pace, they may be weaker because they are unable to increase stride length. or perhaps the body is just choosing the most efficient way to run and it may be a bit different with each runner.

The cadence should not increase with speed. Only the stride length. And by stride length I mean the distance traveled, not how far you stick your heel out. They should be landing on their forefoot mid foot with good form but using the elasticity in their Achilles to propel themselves forward farther. Running is really jumping. The cadence should not increase. Only the length of the "jump" which translates to speed. Your runner could increase his cadence to 180 just in general, but 165 is by no means a bad cadence.

- robes180

Robes180 wrote:

The cadence should not increase with speed. Only the stride length.

- robes180

Care to explain Bolt's 250+ stide rate during a 100m?

How about Bekele going around 190-195 inthe middle of his 5,000m WR?

Robes180 wrote:

The cadence should not increase with speed. Only the stride length...

...165 is by no means a bad cadence.

- robes180

Shirley you can't be sirius?

Usain Bolt: sprinting for very short distances. If you try to do 250 +for a mile you are going to get owned.

Bekele: I don't understand why you brought him up. Once again, he is in the realm of around a 180 cadence.

Another example is Mo farah: around a 175 cadence for the majority of his 5ks.

-robes180

I'm assuming everyone here is talking about long distance running for the majority of a race.... Not the final sprint, or a sprinting event.

-robes180

Robes180 wrote:

I'm assuming everyone here is talking about long distance running for the majority of a race.... Not the final sprint, or a sprinting event.

-robes180

It doesn't matter... Shirley there must be something you can do to understand this.?

Surely there must be something you can do to spell surely correctly.

-robes180

Ted Striker wrote:

It doesn't matter... Shirley there must be something you can do to understand this.?

It does matter. Try running with a 250+ Cadence for a 5k. It's just not efficient for that kind of distance.

-robes180

It's annoying as hell, but I increased my stride rate by running with a metronome for a couple weeks. I went from 160-165 to 175-180. Now my cadence stays in that range naturally. I'm not sure it's a terrible thing to have a lower cadence, but I struggled with injuries before and I don't anymore.

Frankly, this is one over hyped topic and so is the aforementioned golden 180 value. What really matters is that any given athlete should run with proper form at a reasonable stride length/cadence and the athlete should be able to kick hard by modifying that at the end of races.

The values you reported are not anomalies. For that one athlete you are more concerned, how does his legs compare to others? That could be an explanation, ie longer legs.

(Don't forget that there's also ground contact time to be considered)

justsomeoldcoach wrote:

For that one athlete you are more concerned, how does his legs compare to others? That could be an explanation, ie longer legs.

even more important than leg length is how much longer are the tibias compared to the femur? top runners tend to have longer than average tibia:femur ratios.

Running cadence is the result/effect of one's running biomechanics.

Keep in mind that cadence is merely a symptom, not the cause in the case of bad running mechanics. Focus on improving running form and cadence will follow.

Robes180 wrote:

The cadence should not increase with speed. Only the stride length. And by stride length I mean the distance traveled, not how far you stick your heel out. They should be landing on their forefoot mid foot with good form but using the elasticity in their Achilles to propel themselves forward farther. Running is really jumping. The cadence should not increase. Only the length of the "jump" which translates to speed. Your runner could increase his cadence to 180 just in general, but 165 is by no means a bad cadence.

- robes180

Kenenisa Bekele keeps the same stride length on the track regardless of speed. You know who he is don't you?

Just a nitpick, but it measures cadence based on the shock of when the foot hits the ground, not the arm swing.