Changing Cadence and Stride Length -questions

what is your cadence at race pace? I'm betting it isn't still 160.

if you want to break 80min you'll need to flat out be in better shape. that means losing weight and running more. changing your cadence isn't going to magically make you faster by a significant amount.

reed wrote:

what is your cadence at race pace? I'm betting it isn't still 160.

if you want to break 80min you'll need to flat out be in better shape. that means losing weight and running more. changing your cadence isn't going to magically make you faster by a significant amount.

I plan to lose weight and know that needed but isn't heel striking bad?

I haven't measured my cadence at full race pace but per my Garmin which I started using this week, my fastest mile is a 6:43 and the cadence for that mile was 169 and stride length was 1.42 for that mile. Keep in mind that was with a forced mid strike. My cadence was recorded in the 150's before I made this change.

FWIW when ran the 1:20 I was doing 60-70 mpw and was in good shape. I feel like my form is that bad where it's holding me back.

Dude 195 is heavy no matter which way you cut it, unless you're jacked and want to stay that way you gotta drop some more weight than that even at your height. If you drop down even to just 185 I bet you'll see a noticeable drop in effort level. Stop focusing on the midfoot aspect of the strike just try to land closer to your center of balance and make sure you're leaning forward correctly. You'll be fine doing just that.

Takinadump wrote:

Dude 195 is heavy no matter which way you cut it, unless you're jacked and want to stay that way you gotta drop some more weight than that even at your height. If you drop down even to just 185 I bet you'll see a noticeable drop in effort level. Stop focusing on the midfoot aspect of the strike just try to land closer to your center of balance and make sure you're leaning forward correctly. You'll be fine doing just that.

Thanks for the feedback, I definitely agree that I have to lose weight and will make an effort to do so and I'm definitely focusing on the center of balance thing but don't you think that a runner with a short stride and a low cadence is at a huge disadvantage? I feel like to be fast you have to have a cadence in at least the mid to high 170's and a longer stride. Will the center of gravity adjustment alone address this issue?

It's probably not your running form. It's your weight. 205 lbs at 6'2" puts you in the overweight category (26.3 BMI), and dropping to 195 still puts you at 25. I'm seriously impressed you can run in the 1:20's. Lose another 10 pounds to get into the high range of normal (185 lbs, BMI 23.8) and you can drop 2 * 10 * 13.1 = 4:22 from your HM, at least theoretically.

If you can run a HM at 6:10 pace, why is your fastest mile 6:43?

In any case, form changes are tricky, tend to result in increased stress elsewhere in your legs (as you're experiencing now), and may not be successful. If it works for you, great, but there are some fast heel-strikers out there.

reality czech wrote:

It's probably not your running form. It's your weight. 205 lbs at 6'2" puts you in the overweight category (26.3 BMI), and dropping to 195 still puts you at 25. I'm seriously impressed you can run in the 1:20's. Lose another 10 pounds to get into the high range of normal (185 lbs, BMI 23.8) and you can drop 2 * 10 * 13.1 = 4:22 from your HM, at least theoretically.

If you can run a HM at 6:10 pace, why is your fastest mile 6:43?

In any case, form changes are tricky, tend to result in increased stress elsewhere in your legs (as you're experiencing now), and may not be successful. If it works for you, great, but there are some fast heel-strikers out there.

I've only had the new garmin that measures cadence for 3 days and that 6:43 was the last mile of a distance run, haven't done any workouts yet. I'm coming off a hammy injury and am easing back into things before doing speed again.

Thanks for the feedback, seems like the consensus is to just lose weight which I agree with and just focus on center of gravity and if I heal strike so be it.

I do wonder how the elites have a cadence in the 180's and 190's and a stride length of almost 2 meters but maybe it's just a product of them being fast rather than the other way around where they developed the form and got fast as a result.

Fitness is the most important part of the equation. I have a runner on the team that I coach that is 6’3” and he’s 145 lbs. He’s a national caliber athlete. Try getting your body fat down to at least 8-9%. This needs to be done the correct way through proper training and a healthy/balanced diet.

While your build may not permit you to weigh 145 lbs, if you can get your body fat down below 10% (without building unnecessary bulky muscle), you’ll see your times drop drastically.

Jimjamesrunner wrote:

Fitness is the most important part of the equation. I have a runner on the team that I coach that is 6’3” and he’s 145 lbs. He’s a national caliber athlete. Try getting your body fat down to at least 8-9%. This needs to be done the correct way through proper training and a healthy/balanced diet.

While your build may not permit you to weigh 145 lbs, if you can get your body fat down below 10% (without building unnecessary bulky muscle), you’ll see your times drop drastically.

Thanks, I'll focus on losing weight. I will say even running in college my race weight was 190-195 and it was very hard to get under 190, even when running 70mpw and watching what I ate.

Takinadump wrote:

Dude 195 is heavy no matter which way you cut it, unless you're jacked and want to stay that way you gotta drop some more weight than that even at your height. If you drop down even to just 185 I bet you'll see a noticeable drop in effort level. Stop focusing on the midfoot aspect of the strike just try to land closer to your center of balance and make sure you're leaning forward correctly. You'll be fine doing just that.

One follow-up question for you. Doesn't landing close to the center of balance almost force a mid heel strike?

UsedToBeFast wrote:

Takinadump wrote:

Dude 195 is heavy no matter which way you cut it, unless you're jacked and want to stay that way you gotta drop some more weight than that even at your height. If you drop down even to just 185 I bet you'll see a noticeable drop in effort level. Stop focusing on the midfoot aspect of the strike just try to land closer to your center of balance and make sure you're leaning forward correctly. You'll be fine doing just that.

One follow-up question for you. Doesn't landing close to the center of balance almost force a mid heel strike?

very much depends on the overall angle of your body. Lean back and you'll probably heel strike under your center of mass too. Lean forward from the ankles and you are more likely to hit the ground somewhere midfoot.

In the end, you're body will figure out whats the best foot strike. You should just focus on the center of mass - portion & neither hunching forward nor forming a hollow back... imho.

Velocity helps with a mid foot strike more than anything. Why is a midfoot strike so special? There are a lot of heel strikers that run just as efficiently as mid foot strikers.

I've posted this many times on LetsRun, but here goes again.

To run more forefoot, you need to do a couple of things.

1. Run barefoot on a grass football or soccer field. Stand still. Lean forward without bending at the waist until you start falling forward. You will forefoot strike because it is almost impossible to heel strike while running barefoot. After 3-4 reps of 40 meters (or whenever you feel like you can duplicate the form, put on your shoes and run the same way on the track landing on your forefoot. At first, you might only be able to hold this new form for 20-30 seconds because it feels new. When that happens, run normally for a minute or two and then repeat the forefoot form, running 20-30 seconds. Gradually increase the time running forefoot to a minute, then two minutes.

2. Consider switching to a 4mm drop shoe. It's hard to change running form while wearing 10mm heel to toe drop shoes. You'll need to find a shoe that can handle your weight. I'd suggest a Hoka... maybe the Bondi. The Hoka curved outsole will allow you to strike more towards the forefoot.

3. If you want to increase cadence, pick a cadence about 10% faster than your current cadence. Run some of your intervals focusing on cadence. On recovery runs, run the faster cadence for 20-30 seconds. Do not speed up. Just get accustomed to turning your legs over faster. At first, you'll get tired faster, but keep it up and you'll adapt. Again, don't try to speed up. Just turn your legs over faster. This will take some discipline, but once you can hold the faster cadence at recovery paces, you'll find it easier to hold it at interval pace, and then eventually at race pace.

UsedToBeFast wrote:

Runner's spend so

Stopped reading right there. Please try to grasp the simple concept that a pluralized word doesn't require an apostrophe. It's like nails on a chalkboard to read. Thank you.

fisky wrote:

I've posted this many times on LetsRun, but here goes again.

To run more forefoot, you need to do a couple of things.

-----

Too complicated. It's this easy (I'm dead serious, not trying to be funny):

1. Go outside on the sidewalk with your bare feet (or in socks). Start running. You won't heel strike.

2. Put your running shoes on.

3. Run the way you did in step 1.

Pappy wrote:

Velocity helps with a mid foot strike more than anything. Why is a midfoot strike so special? There are a lot of heel strikers that run just as efficiently as mid foot strikers.

You are certainly correct that there are heel strikers that have higher running efficiencies that mid foot strikers. However, the key point is that these heel strikers would have even higher efficiencies if they adopted a midfoot strike.

The advantages of a midfoot strike are pretty well documented. The fast heel strikers, while already very efficient, could potentially stand to benefit from adopting a midfoot strike.

To OP:

You mentioned in your original post that your stride length remained constant after changing your cadence. That suggests to me that your “form change” is only half complete: your cadence has increased but your stride length hasn’t decreased with it. If anything, it’s totally expected that you have increased knee calf pain - you're overstriding just as much as before, but now at a faster rate.

I think your issue is that it is uncomfortable to increase cadence without a corresponding increase in speed (thus your stride length stays the same and the problem isn’t solved). When I was working on cadence, I tended to speed up as well - unless I ran on the treadmill (sorry). I would experiment running with a metronome (plenty of free apps) on a treadmill. Set it to a value slightly higher than what your body is used to. The constant speed of the treadmill will force you to shorten your stride. As you adapt to the higher cadence you can experiment with higher metronome settings. Ultimately you will begin to feel natural at the higher, more efficient cadence and your old cadence will feel like you are bouncing through the air.

My $.02.

fisky wrote:

I've posted this many times on LetsRun, but here goes again.

To run more forefoot, you need to do a couple of things.

3. If you want to increase cadence, pick a cadence about 10% faster than your current cadence. Run some of your intervals focusing on cadence. On recovery runs, run the faster cadence for 20-30 seconds. Do not speed up. Just get accustomed to turning your legs over faster. At first, you'll get tired faster, but keep it up and you'll adapt. Again, don't try to speed up. Just turn your legs over faster. This will take some discipline, but once you can hold the faster cadence at recovery paces, you'll find it easier to hold it at interval pace, and then eventually at race pace.

As an addendum to point 3:

A coach or physiologist (I think it was Jack Daniels) measured one or several runners while on a treadmill. I don’t remember the details of the study, but the gist of it was, when cadence increased, every marker of extortion decreased - except for perceived exertion. The conclusion here is that while it may feel inefficient and counterproductive to increase cadence, it really isn’t.

This study/experiment also suggests that your body does NOT naturally adapt to its most efficient running form. Many people on these cadence threads chime in to say that changing form will definitively reduce running efficiency. Daniels proved that many runners feel comfortable at an inefficient cadence, and that making modifications can improve efficiency.

Cadence Aficionado wrote:

I don’t remember the details of the study, but the gist of it was, when cadence increased, every marker of extortion decreased

Okay, let me get this right. If I increase my cadence, the probability of someone trying to obtain money from me through either force or threat will be reduced?

i don't understand wrote:

Cadence Aficionado wrote:

I don’t remember the details of the study, but the gist of it was, when cadence increased, every marker of extortion decreased

Okay, let me get this right. If I increase my cadence, the probability of someone trying to obtain money from me through either force or threat will be reduced?

Halfway - the key lies in the fact that you will have greater efficiency while running away from potential threats.

I meant to say every marker of exertion decreased.

Thank you, I'm going to try this. Hopefully it's warm enough next weekend to give this a shot.

Question though, do you think the heel strike is my body's subliminal way of protecting my knees. I'm admittedly a bigger distance runner and I've never had knee problems. After 1 week of midstrike my knees are hurting.

I'll try to go back to heel striking for now and ease into it the way you recommended above. It's a shame I was going faster all week with less effort than normal.