Training help/advice

[dobball23]

Foot strike - The general recommendation is to have about 180 steps per minute or more.

I don't think I've seen you quote this number before. I'm usually in the 160s, according to Garmin. Even my most recent half marathon I was only at 171.

 

[DopeyBadger]

I don't think I've seen you quote this number before. I'm usually in the 160s, according to Garmin. Even my most recent half marathon I was only at 171.

So to start, where did the 180 steps per minute recommendation come from? Is it like many other running philosophies handed down over time with no basis in anything other than observation (like running 20 miles for marathon training)? Is it merely based on elites which may or may not be applicable in our training ideals (like running 20 miles for marathon training)?

In 1984, Coach Jack Daniels was evaluating the cadence of elite runners in the Olympics. He noted that 45/46 runners had a cadence of 180. I believe the finding from Daniels was they were at 180 or above. So they could be conceivably be much higher than 180. I haven't been able to find his actual data, but it would seem from more recent elite races that the number probably ranged from 180 to 220 for the runners.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-JSw2WkgMUcC&pg=PT202&lpg=PT202&dq=jack+daniels+cadence+180+1984+olympics&source=bl&ots=zn9w0An9t0&sig=5KyzgIQfGplr3tKU_aEJvd_JHZM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilgt2Fo9nQAhUm5YMKHUxmAoUQ6AEIWjAJ#v=onepage&q=jack daniels cadence 180 1984 olympics&f=false

https://canute1.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/cadence-stride-length-and-mo-farahs-finishing-kick/

https://runnersconnect.net/running-training-articles/heelstriking-running-cadence/

These elite athletes were Olympic quality and competing in the events from the 800m and up. These people are fast! Daniels also noted that none of his recreational runners had a cadence above 180 and that most were at 150-170. And thus, the idea was born that to run like an elite, we should all be running at 180 steps per minute or more. Sometimes this story is misquoted as it was passed around and became we should all run at exactly 180 steps per minute.

It would be interesting as well to know the pace of the recreational runners and phys ed class students. Because while the elites at the 1984 Olympics were at 5:00 min/mile or possibly as low as 3:30 min/mile. But what was the pace of the recreational runners at 150-170 spm? Because if they were a 5:00 min/mile pace at 150 steps that would be an incredible 3.07 meters. They must have been much slower.

I found this article to be the most interesting.

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html

Cadence, Stride Length, Gait and Pace: The Great Debate
*There is additional conversation in the proceeding comments after this initial post.

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html?v=7516fd43adaa

I'd personally say that as long as you don't feel like you're reaching with your foot when you step then you're probably ok. The problem occurs when people want to pick up the pace, they have two options. Increase cadence, or increase stride length (technically you could do both). So some people when they pick up the pace feel as if they should reach out further with their foot to increase their stride length. I'd suggest instead think about putting more power behind the step and the footfall should hopefully stay underneath as appropriate. I tend to be a runner who increases both cadence and stride length (through power) when adjusting my pace upwards.

From @opusone on 12/2/16 during that initial conversation who put it well:

"If you think about it like this, your cadence basically describes the amount of time you are "in the air." The higher the cadence (at the same pace), the less time you are in the air before the next foot strike. So, if you have a low cadence, you will be in the air for a longer amount of time between foot strikes which means that you had to push off harder (more energy). This usually also manifests itself as high vertical oscillation since you have to "jump" higher to get more air time. Higher vertical oscillation is thought of as wasted energy. If you speed up your cadence (but not your pace), two offsetting energy-related things are happening: (i) you don't have to push up as much since you will be off the ground for less time (saves energy), but (ii) you will now be taking more steps per mile. So, although each step takes less energy, you are adding more steps per mile which adds energy. In the end, there is likely some perfect balance (again, at a given pace) that will minimize total energy used per mile. The trick is finding it.

I would think the best way to find it would be to try a couple different cadence levels on your tempo runs. Then, use your HR to determine which cadence took less effort (lower HR) at the same tempo pace. I picked tempo pace since this is basically race pace, and therefore, the pace you want to be most efficient at."

So to circle all the way back to what I put in my instructions:

"Foot strike - The general recommendation is to have about 180 steps per minute or more. To have this many steps per minute, it forces you to take smaller, shorter strides and quicker foot movements. You can measure this with a phone app metronome or have someone watch you run and count. Many Garmins can measures this. Foot strike during the easy running (LR or EA) is still important for reducing injury risk by making sure it is light-footed. Don't force this too much. Gradually over time find your happy place for cadence with a nice quick stride. Having your foot fall underneath your torso is the most important part because overstriding tends to lead to injuries. So the 180# is more of a recommendation to try and move the feet quicker and more efficiently than the number itself. Think hot lava."

So it's my belief that you should focus on short, quick, fast steps that are more possibly more efficient. But whether you actually have to hit 180 spm per minute (or more) is a function of your own pace and possibly some other characteristics. For example, someone running a 12:00 min/mile is unlikely to want to hit 180 spm because that would force some very very short stride length values. So the goal is to find a cadence that is quick enough, whatever that may end up being.

For comparison, here is my cadence and stride length from every HM I've done since 2015 using either my Garmin 620 or Garmin 235.


*Green is Dopey HM

I made a concerted effort to increase my cadence in July 2015 when I started using the Hansons training methodology. I have never made a concerted effort to increase my stride length as it is my belief that has come about naturally because of my increase in power/efficiency and overall gains made through endurance training. Coincidentally I was just looking at this yesterday for my own personal curiosity about what my cadence/SL was in Summer 2019 vs Summer 2020 for my 30s reps. My cadence is actually down a touch, but my SL has increased by a lot (up to 1.8 m now at 4:30s pace). A signal that I may have increased my power/efficiency output in the last year.

So it might be worth a try during an offseason to play around with cadence to see if you can increase it and it make things easier.

 

[opusone]

I don't think I've seen you quote this number before. I'm usually in the 160s, according to Garmin. Even my most recent half marathon I was only at 171.

In 1984, Coach Jack Daniels was evaluating the cadence of elite runners in the Olympics. He noted that 45/46 runners had a cadence of 180.

Just a little more background, Coach Daniels was surprised himself by the consistent cadence metric in the elites because all other metrics he was analyzing varied a decent amount among the runners. This implied to him that there was likely some optimal (or close to optimal) efficiency at 180. He did see a faster cadence with the 800m and 1500m elites; however, from 3000m all the way to marathon, all elites were right around 180.

For me personally, I was a slower cadence runner when I first became aware of this metric (probably about the same time I got my first Garmin that provided cadence). If I remember correctly, I was around 160 on my easy runs and 167-170 for 5k races. So, about five years ago, I decided to focus on shortening my steps to increase cadence. It took quite a while before it began to feel normal; however, I did see an increase in speed. In the last five years, my fastest 5k was at an average cadence of 181, and my fastest half marathon was at an average cadence of 174.

 

[dobball23]

I made a concerted effort to increase my cadence in July 2015 when I started using the Hansons training methodology. I have never made a concerted effort to increase my stride length as it is my belief that has come about naturally because of my increase in power/efficiency and overall gains made through endurance training. Coincidentally I was just looking at this yesterday for my own personal curiosity about what my cadence/SL was in Summer 2019 vs Summer 2020 for my 30s reps. My cadence is actually down a touch, but my SL has increased by a lot (up to 1.8 m now at 4:30s pace). A signal that I may have increased my power/efficiency output in the last year.

As always, thanks for the info!

I just looked and during some recent 150m at 5:40ish pace, my cadence does get up to 186-188 with stride lengths just over 1.50 meters.

A lot of my "normal" training runs my cadence is in the 160s with about 1.18-1.24 meter stride lengths.

My most recent 5K race (at Disney during marathon weekend) I finished in ~21 minutes. My average cadence was 173 and my stride length was 1.38.

I don't know what this data means, other than if I go faster I seem to increase my cadence and stride length. To slow down I decrease both. I think it also means I am not an elite runner (I don't see a lot of cadence in the 180s!), but I think I already knew that!

 

[DopeyBadger]

As always, thanks for the info!

I just looked and during some recent 150m at 5:40ish pace, my cadence does get up to 186-188 with stride lengths just over 1.50 meters.

A lot of my "normal" training runs my cadence is in the 160s with about 1.18-1.24 meter stride lengths.

My most recent 5K race (at Disney during marathon weekend) I finished in ~21 minutes. My average cadence was 173 and my stride length was 1.38.

I don't know what this data means, other than if I go faster I seem to increase my cadence and stride length. To slow down I decrease both. I think it also means I am not an elite runner (I don't see a lot of cadence in the 180s!), but I think I already knew that!

I'd say, see what happens when you do try and intentionally increase cadence. Best to try it out during an offseason though as it does carry a slight increased risk of injury since you are changing what feels natural at the current moment. Maybe it will speed you up and be more efficient, and maybe it won't. The key is light quick steps relative to yourself.

How tall are you? Here's an interesting article : https://www.outsideonline.com/2377976/stop-overthinking-your-running-cadence
For reference, it says that two guys did 62.1 miles in roughly 7 hours (6:46 pace). The one who did it in 155 spm had a stride length of 1.50. The other one who did it in 203 spm had a stride length of 1.17. At the end of the day, they both finish 62.1 miles at 6:46 pace. I'd venture to guess these elite athletes have each figured out their optimal cadence based on personal characteristics.

So no reason a lower spm can't be successful, but rather it's a good idea to experiment a bit to see if your ideal may fall somewhere other than where you currently are.

 

[dobball23]

How tall are you? Here's an interesting article : https://www.outsideonline.com/2377976/stop-overthinking-your-running-cadence

I'm about 6'3". I might have to experiment with cadence adjustments at some point, but not now while I'm in the middle of a training plan (even though it looks like I will end up running a time trial half marathon rather than in an actual race).

 

[DopeyBadger]

I'm about 6'3". I might have to experiment with cadence adjustments at some point, but not now while I'm in the middle of a training plan (even though it looks like I will end up running a time trial half marathon rather than in an actual race).

That's definitely going to play a role in your cadence and stride length in my opinion. Per that particular article (with a very small number of subjects), the relationship was 3 spm per inch of height. I'm 6 foot, so we're about 9 spm different just based on height based on this article's conclusion. Although the article does point to mixed results on previous research on that topic.

 

[dvcterry]

I’m attempting to start training more seriously when it comes to running. I decided to come here for advice from the experts! Thank you in advance for any help you can offer!

To start, I’m not a brand new runner, I just don’t run a lot. I’ve done numerous 5Ks and 10Ks in my area. I‘ve done 2 Princess half marathons, but I ran those for fun (I’ve never run any other half marathons before). I have an Apple Watch and I usually use the Nike run app on the watch to track my runs. I know it’s not a watch for running and it’s not as accurate as a Garmin, but I’m satisfied with it. I’ve been fitted at a running store a few times. My favorite running sneakers are my Brooks.

My goal is to try to improve my speed. I’m registered for all 3 Princess races again this year. I have a 10K race that I usually run for POT just to get in that under 2:45 requirement. Now that it’s 2:30, and there’s a chance that race may turn virtual, I’m likely not going to have a POT but I’m okay with that. I’d like to improve my time for future races though. I usually use a jog/walk approach, based on how I’m feeling as I go, so I thought using the Galloway run/walk/run method with specific time intervals might be somewhat similar to what I already do (just with more precise timing). I looked into the Jeff Galloway training program on the runDisney website, but it’s a little confusing to me. When they give the chart with the pace and the strategy (ex: 9:30 - 10:45 min/mi: 90/30), are you supposed to go by the pace you normally run, or a pace you are working towards? I downloaded an app to try to keep track of the intervals (Intervals Pro), but I have to figure out how to set it up. Anyone have any experience with that one?

I like the idea of 2 short runs during the week and a longer one on the weekend, because it feels attainable. I just want to make sure I understand it correctly and don’t set myself up for failure.

Anyone have any experience using this method, or any other suggestions for methods other than Galloway? I only thought of that one because he’s the name you hear when it comes to runDisney, but I’m open to others. Any other advice?

Yes it is attainable, I've done the two short runs weekdays (5k & 10k) long runs on weekends 10 miles and 14 miles and up. It sucks the weekend away though between the run, stretch, rest. As you get closer to marathon, there are 12 week training you can do up to, including the rest days which increase those short run days throughout the week and long day weekend go up a mile or so. You get stronger over time and do see improvement on pace and distance. Good luck with your training!