Is it actually important to aim for 180 step per minute?

800/1500 college guy wrote:

I'm 5'6 and I run my easy runs at 7:00 pace with 150 spm. I have a pretty long stride and I bounce quite a bit when I run. My mileage is at 60-70mpw and I've been running into problems with injuries on my feet or shins. Should I consider trying to change my rate?

Do you morons not read anything? The answer is the same as every other answer in this thread, no.

Al pacino wrote:

Do not shorten your stride artificially in order to get to 180 and look like all those wannabees that misunderstand the whole issue and look like a running duckling with one 1 meter strides.

+1

Obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but as I said before, I'm 5'1" and my stride rate appears to be pretty high (and I'm really slow). I'm super injury prone, maybe I'd be even more injury prone with a longer stride length, who knows.

This is an interesting a article on elite runners' stride length vs stride frequency:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/11/speed-stride-length-x-stride-frequency.html

The author theorizes that you should basically try to be good at both, because the runners switched between high frequency and long strides in the last 1k of a 10k (fatigue + ending kick)

@Al pacino: thanks man I appreciate your answer

mnjgyfcvguhk wrote:

FR wrote:

I'm 5'1"

Well that explains it

Agreed. .0000000001/10

I see nothing wrong with testing cadence and stride length and setting targets and practicing them in context of working on form/ efficiency, as long as those variations fall within reasonable ranges for the paces your are running at the time. Look at it as you the individual, start with the data your normal efforts give you, don't start with arbitrary numbers (180), or numbers that belong to some guru theorist, or professional runner.

I think there are plenty of good coaches/trainers who would not have a problem with any of that.

FR wrote:

Obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but as I said before, I'm 5'1" and my stride rate appears to be pretty high (and I'm really slow). I'm super injury prone, maybe I'd be even more injury prone with a longer stride length, who knows.

This is an interesting a article on elite runners' stride length vs stride frequency:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/11/speed-stride-length-x-stride-frequency.html

The author theorizes that you should basically try to be good at both, because the runners switched between high frequency and long strides in the last 1k of a 10k (fatigue + ending kick)

Very interesting article but as I read it, all of them are raising at 180+ steps a minute. Is there any world class runner that races under 180?

loqueelvientoajuarez wrote:

You should focus on improving your stride mechanics. Hill sprints, strides, running drills, short repeats with long rests (8 × 400 m at mile pace with 2 min jog), barefoot running, mileage all contribute to it. For most people, this will lead to a stride frequency of about 180.

A very low number (160 spm) can be a sign of overstriding, which should be tackled early on, before it leads to injury.

This is the correct answer. /eot

Hounddogharrier wrote:

FR wrote:

Obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but as I said before, I'm 5'1" and my stride rate appears to be pretty high (and I'm really slow). I'm super injury prone, maybe I'd be even more injury prone with a longer stride length, who knows.

This is an interesting a article on elite runners' stride length vs stride frequency:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/11/speed-stride-length-x-stride-frequency.html

The author theorizes that you should basically try to be good at both, because the runners switched between high frequency and long strides in the last 1k of a 10k (fatigue + ending kick)

Very interesting article but as I read it, all of them are raising at 180+ steps a minute. Is there any world class runner that races under 180?

Are there any world class runners that race above a 5:30 min/mile pace? A faster pace is usually in correlation with higher turnover. From my own experience i race a 10k right at 180spm, my 5k is about 185spm, my mile is about 190/195spm, my 800m is over 200spm. My 400m is definitely over 210spm. My easy days are 170 or 160, my tempo is right around 175. There is no right or wrong answer for this. Pick what your body feels comfortable with. I know several people who have a 5k race pace at no more than 160spm and others who are over 200spm.

Read the thread wrote:

800/1500 college guy wrote:

I'm 5'6 and I run my easy runs at 7:00 pace with 150 spm. I have a pretty long stride and I bounce quite a bit when I run. My mileage is at 60-70mpw and I've been running into problems with injuries on my feet or shins. Should I consider trying to change my rate?

Do you morons not read anything? The answer is the same as every other answer in this thread, no.

I'll disagree with this. 150 is so low that it can lead to injuries

Socrates wrote:

Hounddogharrier wrote:

Very interesting article but as I read it, all of them are raising at 180+ steps a minute. Is there any world class runner that races under 180?

Are there any world class runners that race above a 5:30 min/mile pace? A faster pace is usually in correlation with higher turnover. From my own experience i race a 10k right at 180spm, my 5k is about 185spm, my mile is about 190/195spm, my 800m is over 200spm. My 400m is definitely over 210spm. My easy days are 170 or 160, my tempo is right around 175. There is no right or wrong answer for this. Pick what your body feels comfortable with. I know several people who have a 5k race pace at no more than 160spm and others who are over 200spm.

Spoken like a true pro. I agree.

The only reason the elite cadence is high during races is because they run fast during races. High cadence comes as a result of high speed and not vise versa, and also stride length. And all those idiots that think that if they increase cadence they would suddenly be faster or injury free or elites are...idiots. The body knows to choose they right correlation between cadance and stride length according to the speed you dictate- no need to deal with it. The faster you run, your cadence and stride length would grow as well. The reason it's different between athletes that run at the same speed is probably due to their body measurements and maybe also habit, but in no way one of them one day had decided-mmm let's increase cadence...mmm let's increase stride length. The right correlation is the one you feel most comfortable, and the body knows how to dictate it.

I agree. The human body has been refined over tens of thousands of years to run. All of the studies in the world won't tell you what your body already knows. Just go out there and run and the rest will sort itself out. No need to overthink it.

Read the thread wrote:

800/1500 college guy wrote:

I'm 5'6 and I run my easy runs at 7:00 pace with 150 spm. I have a pretty long stride and I bounce quite a bit when I run. My mileage is at 60-70mpw and I've been running into problems with injuries on my feet or shins. Should I consider trying to change my rate?

Do you morons not read anything? The answer is the same as every other answer in this thread, no.

I have to disagree here. Note the poster has "been running into problems with injuries on my feet or shins." A common cause of shin splints is overstriding. The recommendation for overstriding is to shorten the stride. In order to maintain the same pace with a shorter stride, he'll need to pick up the cadence.

Plus, he'll need a much faster cadence to race, so why not work on a faster cadence during these 7min/mile pace runs?

Higher cadence because you run faster? It could very well be running faster because of higher cadence . It seems clear to me elites run faster because of faster cadence and stride length .