Cadence: Worth working on increasing?

Cadence wrote:

What is your race cadence vs your slow training cadence?

What effect does increasing cadence have on increasing speed?

Apparently most runners have a cadence between 160-170 with elites being 180+, my own cadence is always between 155 and 165 with 98% of my runs being 158-160. Would it potentially be worthwhile to attempt to increase my cadence?

If I run at 4:00/km my cadence is 160

If I run at 4:30/km my cadence is 159

If I run at 5:00/km my cadence is 159

If I run at 5:30/km my cadence is 158

Do most people have a bigger spread in their cadence when they increase speed?

Don't worry about cadence. It's an overrated metric.

Appears you are getting these #'s from your GPS. Anyone know if these Garmins et.al. are in anyway reliable with counting steps?

WTrunner wrote:

Don't worry about cadence. It's an overrated metric.

Fair enough but when it comes right down to it there is only 2 ways to increase speed:

Increase cadence or increase stride length.

So when I'm trying to get faster I can do it by stepping quicker or striding longer. I doubt many would say that I should increase my stride length (but I certainly could be mistaken) so that brings me back to cadence...

kmaclam wrote:

Appears you are getting these #'s from your GPS. Anyone know if these Garmins et.al. are in anyway reliable with counting steps?

From my experience I'd say they are quite reliable if you have a good device (I am currently using the Garmin Forerunner 920).

For example here a recent run of mine:

Distance: 12.20 km

Time: 1:00:00

Cadence: 159

Stride Length: 1.27 meters

So checking the cadence using those numbers:

60 mins x 159 steps per min x 1.27 meters per step = 12.11 km

Not exactly the 12.20 km it should work out to, but I'd attribute that to rounding errors.

Cadence is quite important, especially for runners who are prone to injuries that stem from instability in the stance phase of your stride (IT band syndrome, posterior tibial tendonitis, etc).

The lower your cadence is, the closer you come to simply hopping from foot to foot; running becomes a sped-up plyometric exercise. If you have weak glutes, quads, hips, etc. this will put a greater strain on your knee and ankle. Increasing your cadence and reducing your ground contact time will help you move more efficiently.

Cadence wrote:

WTrunner wrote:

Don't worry about cadence. It's an overrated metric.

Fair enough but when it comes right down to it there is only 2 ways to increase speed:

Increase cadence or increase stride length.

So when I'm trying to get faster I can do it by stepping quicker or striding longer. I doubt many would say that I should increase my stride length (but I certainly could be mistaken) so that brings me back to cadence...

You're correct, but it's just not something that you need to really focus on.

Cadence wrote:

What is your race cadence vs your slow training cadence?

What effect does increasing cadence have on increasing speed?

Apparently most runners have a cadence between 160-170 with elites being 180+, my own cadence is always between 155 and 165 with 98% of my runs being 158-160. Would it potentially be worthwhile to attempt to increase my cadence?

If I run at 4:00/km my cadence is 160

If I run at 4:30/km my cadence is 159

If I run at 5:00/km my cadence is 159

If I run at 5:30/km my cadence is 158

Do most people have a bigger spread in their cadence when they increase speed?

The fastest and most efficient way to propel yourself forward is with more ground contact per lap rather then less. An easy way to accomplish this is to lean forward a little bit when running. This will naturally cause you to shorten your stride.

Don't believe me? Then try this. Stand up straight on a flat surface like you're at attention, with your feet underneath your hips. Now raise your right or left foot, it doesn't matter which, and move it forward as if your walking. Move this foot forward until the back of your heel is even with the tips of your toes on your standing foot and take note of what does or doesn't happen.

Now try it again while leaning forward a bit but keep your neck in line with your upper body. Again take note of what does/doesn't happen.

Now try it again, bending a bit forward only this time bend your neck a little also.

You should notice that in the first test you are still standing erect. In the second you'll feel yourself falling forward. In the third you'll feel yourself falling forward a bit faster than in the second test. That's gravity working for you. Don't fight it, embrace it.

Running with a forward lean will cause you to have more ground contact per lap which means your muscles will keep you moving forward faster.

Stride length is only relative to speed. Don't get hung up on that. More strides per minute, lap or mile is what matters.

Higher cadence isn't exclusive to elites. At 150-160 steps per minute, it would be hard not to over stride and create a significant braking action and it would be likely to produce vertical energy that could be driven horizontally.

Cadence wrote:

What is your race cadence vs your slow training cadence?

What effect does increasing cadence have on increasing speed?

Apparently most runners have a cadence between 160-170 with elites being 180+, my own cadence is always between 155 and 165 with 98% of my runs being 158-160. Would it potentially be worthwhile to attempt to increase my cadence?

If I run at 4:00/km my cadence is 160

If I run at 4:30/km my cadence is 159

If I run at 5:00/km my cadence is 159

If I run at 5:30/km my cadence is 158

Do most people have a bigger spread in their cadence when they increase speed?

I try to keep a consistent cadence, regardless of pace. That said, it's okay if it's higher on some runs, but I rarely let it dip below 180, even when running at an 8:xx pace. Running form doesn't have to be sloppy when running slow. I found that keeping my cadence at 180, my overall form is much better on my easy days. Now when I run at race pace, I don't even have to think about cadence. It's natural. I sometimes even hit 200 spm. I'm a 50mpw guy and have never had an injury or even a hint of one so far.

Cadence wrote:

What is your race cadence vs your slow training cadence?

What effect does increasing cadence have on increasing speed?

Apparently most runners have a cadence between 160-170 with elites being 180+, my own cadence is always between 155 and 165 with 98% of my runs being 158-160. Would it potentially be worthwhile to attempt to increase my cadence?

If I run at 4:00/km my cadence is 160

If I run at 4:30/km my cadence is 159

If I run at 5:00/km my cadence is 159

If I run at 5:30/km my cadence is 158

Do most people have a bigger spread in their cadence when they increase speed?

I try to keep a consistent cadence, regardless of pace. That said, it's okay if it's higher on some runs, but I rarely let it dip below 180, even when running at an 8:xx pace. Running form doesn't have to be sloppy when running slow. I found that keeping my cadence at 180, my overall form is much better on my easy days. Now when I run at race pace, I don't even have to think about cadence. It's natural. I sometimes even hit 200 spm. I'm a 50mpw guy and have never had an injury or even a hint of one so far.

How is running a 6:00 mile at 160 steps per minute less efficient than running a 6:00 mile at 170 steps per minute? How is doing a movement 7% more frequently more efficient? To me, 160 feels smooth and easy. 170 feels short and choppy. If I could cover a mile in one step, that seems more efficient than covering a mile in over a thousand. You are assuming that covering a mile in one step requires more vertical loft. It only requires more velocity.

What is the origin of this myth that there is a golden cadence and that cadence should be the same regardless of pace? The "ideal" cadence will vary between runners. Also cadence absolutely is related to pace. As pace increases, cadence must also increase.

Runner faster demands a faster cadence and a longer stride. If it didnt, we would expect to see the world's best 100m runners with the same turnover as the world's best 100m runners and also as the world's best marathon runners. But they arent.

Also it varies between individuals. It is somewhat proportional to height/leg length. This is why gatlin takes 48 or so strides to run the 100m while gay takes more like 45 strides, for very similar times.

The important thing is to run with the correct cadence for you. For the majority of amateur runners, this means increasing cadence. However, this doesn't mean you can just tell everybody to increase their cadence. Too fast of turnover is inefficient as well.

Listen to my ass speak wrote:

If I could cover a mile in one step, that seems more efficient than covering a mile in over a thousand.

You might think so, but it isn't.

Listen to my ass speak wrote:

You are assuming that covering a mile in one step requires more vertical loft. It only requires more velocity.

You are assuming it doesn't, it does.

Listen to my ass speak wrote:

How is running a 6:00 mile at 160 steps per minute less efficient than running a 6:00 mile at 170 steps per minute? How is doing a movement 7% more frequently more efficient? To me, 160 feels smooth and easy. 170 feels short and choppy.

It is counter-intuitive but easy to test. I have done so, you have not. I started at 160 and tested 180, it did feel strange but it was more efficient. It took some time to get used to and now 180 is slow and feels odd.

As someone else said, it will be slightly different for many but 160 is too low.

Listen too your ass, get to work.

Hmm... I recently bought a new Garmin that track SPM, and I noted when I am strong and feeling good on a run, I'm around 178-180spm... when I'm crashing or just on a recovery run I am in the 160-170 range. I get above 180spm when I am racing or doing speed work. I am a sub-14:30 guy.

Good point but the OP is not asking about the sprint events. Make a comparison using distance runners to be relevant.

Anyone know if there is an ideal height to cadence ratio. Certainly a 76 inch runner with a cadence of 180 is running with different mechanics than a 66 inch runner with a 180 cadence. Actually the ratio should be leg length to cadence. People of the same height can have quite different leg lengths.

multiply your height (in inches) to cadence ratio and muliply it by your Leg Speed Velocity...that will give you Height Adjusted Cadence Velocity Efficiency

Height to cadence ratio wrote:

Anyone know if there is an ideal height to cadence ratio. Certainly a 76 inch runner with a cadence of 180 is running with different mechanics than a 66 inch runner with a 180 cadence. Actually the ratio should be leg length to cadence. People of the same height can have quite different leg lengths.

that is a very good point, just difficult to measure, so me always used height. But if using leg length - it should be inside length (pelvic bone to heel) plus outside length, BOTTOM of hip bone to bottom of ankle) divide by 2 and multiply by a factor 1.047688. Then multiply that number by your height in inches and divide by .99634. And that will be your metric

Not addressing any other arguments people may present against increasing cadence, but doing so is simple and doesn't take much time to do. Two weeks of awkward feeling workouts and it'll feel normal and you won't have to think about it any more.

I think the point isn't necessarily hitting a specific number on the cadence itself, but making sure you aren't over striding. On technical trails I don't think you have as much control over cadence but on smooth flat surfaces it is trivial.