Told cadence is to high to be efficient. 190-200 during tempo runs

Uhhh wrote:

Yuki has a stride length of around 1.6m if he's doing 200 at 5min/mile.

You're right there is a lot of individual variation in the combination of stride length and cadence. But if one is particularly high and the other particularly low then it's likely that there is room for improvement by bring the lower one up. I believe that's what I Am Sam was trying to say - a 1.24m stride length has room to get out to 1.5m or beyond. I seem to remember calculating that Mo Farah has a stride length of 1.8m.

Whether you should improve stride length by decreasing cadence is the real question to be answered by this thread.

Thanks, you seem to 'get' the variation argument.

The point that is being missed is that a too long or too short stride length is meaningless in and of itself as a tape measured or even back calculated number.

It is all about where your COM is when the foot strikes, doesn't matter if you too much heel or mid foot than someone else -let's leave the forefoot out of this shall we? ;-)

...and the way to get COM to 'catch up', just have a look at the guys like Bekele, and Yuki quoted here, it comes from 'air time' due to the higher back lift (note the free energy contribution from tendons here), then a 'not so high' knee lift as the lower leg 'pendulums' through

The simplest thing is to have a look at most kids running around on a field...we were all like that and most people unlearn it either by natural default, or the modern trend of fads.

cheers

Well I was told after providing video that I need to slow my cadence down because I am not “using my gluteus” which means I have a lot of unlocked potential in his mind. I was told to slow my arm movement down which will slow my turnover down and make my stride longer.

Before providing video today I attempted to lengthen my stride not over striding forward but leg comin backwards more. I couldn’t go as quick I just slowed down. He says it’s because I have become very efficient at running inefficient!

I think the short steps quicker turnover are keeping me running but he claims that the shorter steps is why I have all these calf and tibial tendon/shin splint issues because my calf’s are doing all the work and I need to learn to activate my Glutes to go faster easier.. I just don’t see it. Tomorrow I have to work on 200m repeats at 5K pace (5:20) for efficiency.

These are the cadences he wants me to follow

7:45-7:15 pace 170-175SPMs

5:20 pace 185SPMs and below

I just don’t understand how slowing my arms will make my stride length longer it doesn’t feel right

I Am Sam wrote:

Now as to 'why stride lengths are not thrown around' it is damn obvious, because Daniels sitting on the side of track would be hard pressed to tape measure the strides, don't you think :-) and therefore cadence was a much better buzzword, and measures exactly the same thing if people just used common sense and did some simple arithmetic abnd realised they are not all the same height nor all the same speed.

cheers

No, if you know cadence/stride frequency, and you know pace, you can calculate stride length in a few seconds. You could figure it out just as fast on the track too. Count strides per 100 m instead of strides per 15.0 seconds or whatever, the information is there for the taking.

The reason stride length is not thrown around is because cadence is a more basic measure that can be applied to all abilities of runners. I, or any hobby jogger with similar body/leg spring constant, could conceivably have the same cadence pattern as Yuki. Meaning, it would we might have identical cadences for a jog, easy, marathon, tempo, 10K, 5K, mile, and sprint efforts. He would just be going 25% faster for the same type of efforts at the same cadence, and therefore also have a 25% longer stride. Some other hobby jogger with decent form might have the same cadence as Farah for the same types of efforts, but would simply have a shorter stride in proportion to how much slower they are than Farah. There's nothing amazing about any elite runner's cadence. On the other hand, stride length comparisons are primarily a measure of speed once you go beyond recognizing that you have high cadence and low cadence elites. It's just another way of saying that the elites are faster than you.

Your coach is an idiot, at least in this matter.

What are your qualifications, serious question.

You do realise that you are saying the same thing as me, but coming to a different conclusion.

Of course speed = stride x cadence, increase either one and the speed increases.

The point I make however, from a physics perspective, is that on the bell curve of peak efficiencies over speed and height ranges, both of those have to increase/decrease.

If you are hypothetically already at that peak (for your speed/height) and want to run faster by 'just' a change in cadence or 'just' a change in stride length and not both, then you will move away from that peak....not even considering the effects on injuries/fatigue etc

If you are not at that peak, then both of those may need adjustments in different directions (at same speed).

However, out of range values can be pretty obvious, as I believe the OP's case is.

But, there is no need for you or the OP to agree...its your bodies, your potential do what you want.

Let me try to understand what your argument is, because you don't lay it out clearly. Are you talking about a bell curve of a population of runners? And when you say already at that peak, you are saying someone at the one of the tail ends of the bell curve? For example Kawauchi on one end and Farah on the other end? What does that have to do with what happens when running faster?

What do you think is limiting someone like Kawauchi, or me, since I can't speak for Kawauchi? What kind of injuries would you expect? When would you expect to see fatigue sooner than someone with slower cadence? Are you talking fatigue as a race goes on? If so, what distance race are you thinking of? Or fatigue in training?

I'll say that injury-wise, my higher cadence was probably a contributing factor to me being bulletproof my first 20-25 years of running because the impact forces are less. Pretty much unheard of durability compared to other runners. I ran up to 140-145 miles a week in singles in college, while wearing shoes that lasted almost a full year(4,400 miles) in a 5,000 mile year. I've never had a stress fracture. I ran 60+ miles per week all summer starting from my very first week as a runner at 16.

As for fatigue, are you imagining that it's hard to hold a high cadence for a long time? If so, you are mistaken. A high cadence for someone like me is as natural as a slow cadence for a loper. It doesn't feel fast, it's in the elasticity of the legs - it's like a tuning fork having a particular frequency - that's the way it bounces.

First day of trying to change form was terrible.

I did warmup at 6:49 pace with average 170spm. It felt crappy, taxed me more and felt like I was trying to bound and not move my arms.

200ms at 5K pace were worse 40 seconds was almost impossible staying at 185 or lower. I tried to push forward to cover more ground as I was unable to keep 40 second pace without hitting 188-192. I almost felt like I was competing in the triple jump. Now my knees hurt, my IT band hurts.

I got to make the changes as he says I won’t get better without it. I don’t believe that as I’ve only been running 10 months after that 18-19 year layoff. Maybe some people just go more steps at a quicker pace. I always struggled racing bikes to put out power coming out of turns. I always had to spin my way out of turns at 120-140rpms we’re all the good crit racers could unload at 80-90 rpms our ofcthe turns.

Part of this makes me want to give up but the other part knows I’m capable of 33-33:30 10k if I stick with it for another year. For a soon to be 40 year old in 16 months I feel that’s a pretty good time.

I have a high cadence myself (nearly 200 at tempo pace) and a short stride and I've been trying to increase the stride length, because I'm pretty sure I've maxed out the cadence (at sub 5k speeds I hit 220). Like you, I tried to artificially lower my cadence and increase my stride length. It's a bad ideas. I ended up with knee and ITB issues after just a week and I'm one of the most injury free runners I know, Here's the thing: even if you are more or less maxed out on the cadence end, and getting faster necessarily requires you to lengthen your stride, it doesn't follow that artificially lengthening your stride and decreasing your cadence will get you closer to that goal. There are all sorts of reasons that we have short strides, but one of them is surely that we're not generating enough force with each step. That's a power/muscle contraction issue. You're better off doing leg strengthening exercises- walking lunges, Bulgarian split squats, plyo stuff. That way, when and if your stride length increases, it'll do so naturally, in a way that minimizes the injury risks. Throw in some strides and shorter, faster reps, in training to generate power. That's a much better plan then just randomly altering your gait, without making any of the physiological changes necessary to safely support that gait.

I will agree with this. I am of the belief that our natural cadence is generally the most efficient for our bodies in their current state. However, it may not be the most efficient possible and disagree with anyone who says there is no such thing as bad form and good form. Bad form is a symptom. Change the body then change the form. Elites have good form. They have the time and means to address their minor faults (which are naturally quite few) and their resulting form is a template to go by.

When I think of someone running with short choppy steps, shuffling along with no hip extension, I picture a HS girl I know with no power in the glutes/hams, an anterior pelvic tilt, and tight hip flexors. Telling her to force a lower cadence would result in an awkward stride. Her body is not equipped to handle it so the only way to achieve the lower cadence is by compensating in another way, probably reaching out and overstriding, causing other issues.

Cadence numbers alone are so variable that we can't tell you if yours is natural and fine or a symptom of something needing to be fixed. Your coach may be right that you are not generating power from your glutes. But I will disagree with forcing the change and 2nd Obilisk's suggestion to address the root cause (if that is the issue). Once a problem is addressed it does take some conscious work to reprogram yourself though. Although this time it shouldn't feel as awkard and forced.

zzzz wrote:

Let me try to understand what your argument is, because you don't lay it out clearly. Are you talking about a bell curve of a population of runners? And when you say already at that peak, you are saying someone at the one of the tail ends of the bell curve? For example Kawauchi on one end and Farah on the other end? What does that have to do with what happens when running faster?

No.

What I am saying that for every speed band for people of a certain height, the efficiency of running is on a bell curve of cadence (or stride length because we are talking about same speed), where the peak of that efficiency (top of curve not tail) comes at a certain cadence.

So, for Kawauchi, not sure what his measured efficiency is , but assuming that he has to be at the peak or close to it at his pace, so when he changes cadence without speed he is moving away from that peak. If he wants to go faster then the cadence and stride length will have to change to maintain the best efficiency (not the same efficiency because that is likely to decrease for the benefit of speed).

So two variables are speed and height. Efficiency at a particular cadence will be different both for different pace and whether you are very tall or very short (as an exaggeration to make it clearer).

Hope that explains what I am at.

Just last night, it the chat after a group training run (not my group, a social one), someone looked at watch and said "my cadence is wrong, it should be higher".

I said "there is no 'wrong' cadence or 'right' cadence...it depends. Can it be better or worse, that depends on your pace".

Also said " Just as there is no 'I am over striding because I land on my heels.'..you are over striding when you land in front of your COM, whether heel or mid foot".

I think the connection between the two seems to be why people are trying use cadence (therefore shorter stride) to fix real over striding, whereas they should try to get more 'air time' to get the COM over the landing. By all means then increase your cadence too...and guess what, you are going quicker at a better efficiency than before.

tldr version....move your COM rather than chop stride to fix over striding.

Obilisk18 wrote:

Like you, I tried to artificially lower my cadence and increase my stride length. It's a bad ideas. I ended up with knee and ITB issues after just a week and I'm one of the most injury free runners I know,

Durant_runner11 wrote:

First day of trying to change form was terrible.

SNIP////SNIP

Now my knees hurt, my IT band hurts.

SNIP////SNIP

I got to make the changes as he says I won’t get better without it. I don’t believe that as I’ve only been running 10 months after that 18-19 year layoff.

This is not something you can change in one day or one week.

You answer your own question at the end.

These form issues are mostly with runners starting or returning to running in 30's to 50's and an industry of physiotherapy has grown from this, especially the new median marathoner of over 4 hr

As I said, watch a kid run...we all ran like that, and for runners who kept running out of school, that 'demographic' has much better form...more Bekele type and fewer shufflers. Nothing to do with talent, but losing that 'running memory' after inactivity.

Hope that helps, and good luck...we should always seek improvement and question the status quo...even if we think it is ok

So, is what you believe is that for any given height, you can make a table or graph of what the most efficient cadence is at any speed? If that's so, it's clearly wrong. It leaves no room for individual variation, different muscle types, different form, even something as simple as different fitness and ability. Or are you talking about a population of runners of a given height, that the optimal cadence for that height is in a bell curve? But then that would be the bell curve that I was referring to, where Farah and Kawauchi are on different ends. By the way, Mo Farah and Kawauchi are the same height, both 5'9".

zzzz wrote:

So, is what you believe is that for any given height, you can make a table or graph of what the most efficient cadence is at any speed? If that's so, it's clearly wrong. It leaves no room for individual variation, different muscle types, different form, even something as simple as different fitness and ability. Or are you talking about a population of runners of a given height, that the optimal cadence for that height is in a bell curve? But then that would be the bell curve that I was referring to, where Farah and Kawauchi are on different ends. By the way, Mo Farah and Kawauchi are the same height, both 5'9".

It is a broad statistical measure, height and speed are main variables, but of course if you are going to count each and every variable then you would have separate speed/cadence/efficiency graphs for all and it becomes messy.

It is a statistical curve...it does not mean ..."my height is x, my speed is y therefore if that puts me at z on curve, that's what 'my' value should be". The ultimate is that every person would have an individual graph, if we take that no two people are equal on the planet ;-)

BTW, Farah and Kawauchi would not be on different 'ends'. They , by nature of performance and observation already would be at or near peak efficiency...thats part of what makes them world class

zzzz wrote:

Your coach is an idiot, at least in this matter.

I Am Sam wrote:

What are your qualifications, serious question.

He's a professional idiot detector.

Cut my running off for the week after yesterday’s experiment. Pain in all types of places I have not had the entire time I have been running 70-85 miles a week. 192 cadence in my tempos May be what I’m most efficient at. I don’t want want the prettiest stride I want want to run high mileage injury free. Now I have to shut it down the rest of the week and start fresh Monday. Got 7 weeks before my first 5K track.

hill bounds, single leg bounds, hill sprints, plyos

Wether or not there is merit in your coaches ideas around cadence/form

You shouldn’t do it while you are in full build mode for a 5k 6 weeks out.

These experiments should be embraced when you are regrouping after big goals.

Also , nobody has mentioned forward lean . That seems to be a big part of longer stride length at slower cadence.

I worked with video and forward lean was easily seen to give me the nice hip, extension heel to butt , and good figure 4 short lever action people talk about.

This was part of my lower cadence retraining. Still to be decided whether it is a solid idea for me or not, but it seems promising . I am 1.95m tall , so quick cadence for distance running is probably less efficient for me except for a finishing kick or if my form was breaking down in a race.

dasdsdsdasdasd wrote:

hill bounds, single leg bounds, hill sprints, plyos

S/he's not trying to be a sprinter.

Dufas wrote:

Also , nobody has mentioned forward lean . That seems to be a big part of longer stride length at slower cadence.

Good point. That comes naturally with the improvement in form to a higher back lift and pendulum affect.

To OP...you absolutely cannot change this and expect it to be like switching a light on or off. There will be consequences if you try to 'just change it'. Your muscles will not be used to it.

It has taken you 18 yrs for that 'laziness' in form to come about, it won't take you 18 minutes to fix it.

You are not a sprinter, but yes, you have to do drills to get things like the glutes, hammies , calves, tendons etc working the way they 'should'.

Lastly, do a simple experiment. Stand at the 35km mark of a marathon and watch the groups, sub 2:40, sub 3 etc to 4:30 + and see who has 'better' form. Chalk and cheese. Compare that to the 5km mark as reference

Decide which you want to emulate.

cheers