footstrikes per minute

yes

bump.

Still yes.

okay. how about 180? and why not 200?

i believe jack daniels did a study at the olympics from all distances from the 800 to the marathon and came up with the afact that off all the runners in those events, only a couple went under ninty, and the rest were just around there. im not sure i remember the 90 number exactly, but its in his book.

Scientitists, using the Houbbele telescope, found that the correct number of footstrikes per minute rounded to two decomal places is 182.76.

Less, you a jogger. More, you a poser.

180 is about right. Don't listen to all the BS. If you're in this range, don't worry about being exact - it varies person to person.

question? wrote:

for a marathon, does 200 footstrikes/minute seem too much?

Some runners do 200 in a marathon. Catherine Ndereba does more than 200, up to 208.

Daniels found that runners averaged 180 (90 strides x 2) footstrikes per minute in distances above 800m. An average is an average...some were faster some were slower, the average was 180.

Most novice runners tend to be below average in their cadence. This suggests an obvious form critique to make to novices interested in improving: increase stride rate without increasing stride length. It is tougher to do than you might think.

200 is on the high side of average but well within the range of plausibility.

for what its worth, went out today intentionally trying to get my cadence dowm to about 180-185. got it to around 190. went about 1/2 kilometer further in about 30 minutes of running compared to yesterday at cadence of 200. tomorrow, get it to 180 and see what happens.

I think that people that have slow stride rates tend to have more impact and more bounce than runners that have around the 180 that Daniels found.

Do heavier built runners tend to have a longer stride/lower stride rate and runners of a lighter build - the opposite?

question? wrote:

for what its worth, went out today intentionally trying to get my cadence dowm to about 180-185. got it to around 190. went about 1/2 kilometer further in about 30 minutes of running compared to yesterday at cadence of 200. tomorrow, get it to 180 and see what happens.

no no no stick to 200 like lots of great runners, El G, Geb, Bekele etc etc.

even if the distance run is quite as bit further than El G and Bekele? I'm more of a half/full marathoner.

faster cadence just means that you use more slow-twitch muscles at any given pace, thus it means you build up less lactate--all of which is to say, stay with your natural high cadence. Though you might consider doing what Renato has his marathoners with a less powerful stride do: 10s hills on a very steep incline. That way you have power + turnover, which = fast times.

thanks. that makes quite a bit of sense. will 10sec hills really do the trick? no need to bash out 2min repeats?

I like to do quick intervals on the treadmill (70 second quarters or so) to practice my cadence. I find that I'm not comfortable taking giant strides on a speeding treadmill and I naturally fall into a quick stepping pattern.

For strength (i.e. longer stride) you need close to maximal effort - thus 10s repeats are enough. If you do two minutes, it is a submaximal effort and you are developing endurance more than strength.

so keep the cadence high, and bash the crap out of myself for the 10s. got it. how many repeats? the usual, go until i feel like i only have one more in me, then run home?