Comments on: Observations on Cadence Change With Running Speed on the Track

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:22:29 +0000

In reply to Mark Cucuzzella MD. I've looked at the Optogait a few times, pretty cool device!

By: Mark Cucuzzella MD

Mark Cucuzzella MD — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:42:44 +0000

Pete, nice post. I have been using Optogait for evals and almost everyone increases cadence as they decrease contact time with increase in speed. this is an objective tool that tells what it is
Best
Mark

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:05:51 +0000

In reply to Steve. Hills and speed are indeed a great combo. Been doing a lot of both the past few months, hoping it pays off this Fall!

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 18:23:46 +0000

Peter,
Great post! I think when you look at the elites, you see above 180, closer to 190 for all. Light weight, years of training at a high level, and genetics. When I was 34 I set all my PRs after about 10 years of 40-50 a week with reg hills, and speed. (5K 16:11) I believe Hill work, (30-60 sec), up a moderate incline where you can get a good pace going will help your push off and extention. There is no better way I have found to increase both at the same time. Do 6 weeks of hills, then sharpen on the track keeping a lower rep hill workout once a week to maintain. It always worked for me, I found I had more power and extension when I hit the track. :)

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Tue, 01 Jul 2014 12:00:41 +0000

In reply to rohan. Thanks Mark, definitely something I need to keep working at!

By: rohan

rohan — Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:39:48 +0000

Hi Pete,
Good observational article. I’ve read your book which is great, and as a running coach I would definitely like to see you work on greater drive and hip extension given your results, over a few months and see whether a reduced cadence with greater drive might achieve a better result, i.e. more efficient, speed over time, say in your 5km TT. Whilst I’d agree that 180 may not be the magic number, you will need extremely good co-ordination to maintain an efficient rate of 200+ as was posted, this requires alot of energy. As you’ve written I try to get my runners to increase their cadence by 5-10% through good technique application, but that is because they are all well under the 180 mark anyway. Further to that point & to respond to Chuck, increasing cadence can only be effective if practised correctly, as in each stage of the gait cycle is practised so that the foot picks up from the ground quickly, and glutes are activated early in the drive phase. I find Mark Cuccerella’s video very good for this explanation, and combined with many track nased running drills very good for developing these motor patterns.

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:27:10 +0000

In reply to Chris Donald.

There has been a lot of research on this topic actually, and the cadence at which a given individual is most efficient is variable from person to person, and most definitely not always 180. Wrote a lot about this in my book, in particular the Cavanagh references here: http://www.treadlightlybook.com/2012/05/references-chapter-8-running-stride.html. Not aware of any research showing that 180 is optimal.

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:22:56 +0000

In reply to Yves.

Thanks Yves! I’ve actually measured my cadence with the Garmin 620, my iPhone, and a foot pod in the past. All are very consistent at counting steps. Where they fail is converting that into a pace, but that is handled by GPS in the watch and on iPhone. I’d have to disagree with Mark if he says that cadence shouldn’t vary much with pace. Alex Hutchinson also wrote a nice post showing the same thing: http://sweatscience.com/the-problem-with-180-strides-per-minute-some-personal-data/

By: Yves

Yves — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:58:19 +0000

I Peter,
Congrats.once again for your blog. A huge source of usefull information. I’m a big fan and reader from Belgium, Europe.
I would suggest another hypothesis: considering your Garmin measures cadence without podometer I wonder if your cadence is not simply wrongly estimated by an algorithm calculating your cadence… from your pace.
Dr Cucuzella says cadence should not vary too much with pace. He demonstrates that in several videos.
That being said, I registered an increase of my cadence too when I approach my max speed.
I attribute that to the limit of my body/flexibility , not being able to lengthen my stride without altering my gait. From a certain cadence, we compensate by increasing cadence to an excessive level.
A beautiful counter example is to observe Mirinda Carfrae. The Aussie Ironwoman has one the most beautiful running technique on earth. She runs a marathon in 2h50 after 3.8km swim and 180km bike under heat with a nice 180 steps tempo and a forefoot strike. The length of her stride is tremendous … And all this giving the impression it is an easy job.

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:51:56 +0000

In reply to Steve. Nope, cadence change with speed is normal.

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:48:59 +0000

In reply to Chuck.

There has actually been research showing that increasing cadence by 5-10% reduces loading at the knee and hip, so it accomplishes the goal: https://runblogger.com/2010/08/shorter-quicker-stride-reduces-impact.html

The difficulty is knowing what is contributing to your stride length at a given cadence – reaching out front, flight time, hip extension, etc. This is where video can be helpful. This is why it isn’t so simple to say everyone should run at 180 – every case really needs to be considered individually. I’d like to see studies that look at forces/efficiency as it relates to extension of the shin at contact for example, no sure of any off the top of my head.

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:29 +0000

In reply to Corey S. I would say at that pace probably not a huge worry. If you increase to 8:00/mile my guess is you are above 170. Would be an interesting experiment.