Run Run Away

Question:

Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson.

I didn’t see him doing much over 3.7/second or 3.8/second in the 400 meter. In fact, the only person I saw going much over 4/second in the 2000 Olympics was that Zhana woman who was pumping a serious 4.2, making those God-awful funny contorted faces (when seen in slow mo) that runners always seem to like to do when they get around 4. I don’t see regular people doing much over 2.7/second or 2.8/second. 3/second is well-oiled trained-runner pace.

Response:

Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. I didn’t see him doing much over 3.7/second or 3.8/second in the 400 meter.

Should have looked more closely then:  MJ was at 4.17 steps per second at the U.S. Olympic qualifying trials. It’s a fact! Did the videotaping and the work to confirm. In fact, the only person I saw going much over 4/second in the 2000 Olympics was that Zhana woman who was pumping a serious 4.2, making those God-awful funny contorted faces (when seen in slow mo) that runners always seem to like to do when they get around 4. I don’t see regular people doing much over 2.7/second or 2.8/second. 3/second is well-oiled trained-runner pace.

Many in r.r. routinely do 3.0 to 3.1, and that during easy to moderate training speeds. Maurice Green does 4.6 to 4.7 steps per second in the 100 m. The Stanford miler (the flake) hits 3.85 steps per second during the final lap, and averages 3.7 steps/sec. Denny – and UW has yer BBall coach

Response:

"Tim (E-mail to this address is NOT downloaded)"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Tim (E-mail to this address is NOT downloaded)" Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min. <snip Did I just kill this thread stone dead or was my rambling just too preposterous? Tim That would be my vote!

Ah ha!  So which bit didn’t you understand? Tim

Response:

"Tim (E-mail to this address is NOT downloaded)"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min. <snip Did I just kill this thread stone dead or was my rambling just too preposterous? Tim That would be my vote! Ah ha!  So which bit didn’t you understand? Tim

I understood that a) you killed the thread and b) your ramblings were too preposterous – based on the willingness(lack thereof) of anyone here to spend an inordinate amount of time to ponder and reply. So – no response. There is a wealth of info on optimum cadence, as well as stride length vs. cadence in conjunction with running speed changes. But, your analysis was not useful, since the work has already been done without trying to use pseudo kinematics. Real human kinematics analysis is rather complicated. Well designed experiments, employing a decent cross section of runners, more easily reveals the universal truths of cadence vs. stride length for "efficient" runners. Dr. Peter Cavanaugh and Co. did that stuff in the mid 70’s. Denny  :]

Response:

<snip I understood that a) you killed the thread and b) your ramblings were too preposterous – based on the willingness(lack thereof) of anyone here to spend an inordinate amount of time to ponder and reply. So – no response.

Well, I don’t suppose I can argue with a) but I really didn’t think my thoughts were that out of line. As you say, perhaps I just covered well trod ground and added nothing new. I was really trying to respond to the suggestion that there is a single "magic" cadence  (i.e. 180) for *all* runners, an idea I find preposterous. I thought (mistakenly) that my thoughts might have been of interest to others. Tim

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip I understood that a) you killed the thread and b) your ramblings were too preposterous – based on the willingness(lack thereof) of anyone here to spend an inordinate amount of time to ponder and reply. So – no response. Well, I don’t suppose I can argue with a) but I really didn’t think my thoughts were that out of line. As you say, perhaps I just covered well trod ground and added nothing new. I was really trying to respond to the suggestion that there is a single "magic" cadence  (i.e. 180) for *all* runners, an idea I find preposterous. I thought (mistakenly) that my thoughts might have been of interest to others. Tim

I understood what you were trying to do. However I had already responded to the issue of <"magic" cadence  (i.e. 180) for *all* runners in an earlier post in this thread. To wit: 180/min is optimum for "learning" to become an efficient runner. It is not optimum, as you indicated in your ref to MJ (which is correct, BTW) for all running speeds. 5000m races will normally see a range of cadence from 185 to 205 steps/min 1500m from 200-225 s/m 800m around 230-240 s/m 400m; 250 s/m +- some small value (MJ) 100m; 265-280 s/m. (M. Green – 276 s/m) So cadence for "learning" to run properly (180 s/m through a wide range of easy efforts) is far different from cadence appropriate during intense, race condition, effort. The point being, that those who use an inefficiently slow cadence need to train at a higher cadence (which is near marathon steps/min) in order to "learn" what greater efficiency feels like. At some point the runner will settle into the most efficient, or naturally selected cadence, which is most correct for him/her at any running speed. By initially training at 180 s/m the learning curve is steepened, so that it takes much less time to discover the "naturally selected" cadence. A persistent runner will discover it eventually, but may unnecessarily go through bouts of injury and other maladies associated with poor form/efficiency. Denny – peace

Response:

"Tim (E-mail to this address is NOT downloaded)"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min. <snip Did I just kill this thread stone dead or was my rambling just too preposterous? Tim

That would be my vote! Denny

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. Then can I do a drill running at an as high as possible cadence. Meanwhile, do another drill running at as low as possible cadence. I am not sure whether anyone had asked these questions before. I did feel these drills won’t hurt at least. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Don

First off what are your goals? Are you running track, long distance ultra marathons? WHAT? This is a bit like walking into a music store and saying to a salesperson "I’d like to buy some music." Gotta know what you want to accomplish. I’ve always had the opinion that you should train very similar to the way you want to race. If you are going to race a 5k then it doesn’t do you much good to to train using a sprinter’s program. In effect run the cadence that you are going to race at. Sprinters and long distance runners are very different in terms of training and approach to the race. My feeling is that in a race you want to focus on one thing, racing fast. The last thing you need bugging you at the 4th kilometer of a 5k is "Gee, should I run 180 steps per minute or 195?" Another thing is that the repititive motion of running gets you into a groove that you can feel. The more you know how you feel the better you’ll be able to run in a race. And the more time you spend running at your natural rhythm the more you’ll know about how you react to situations. I personally don’t understand all the fuss about cadence for long distance runners. For sprinters this is a very important issue, not really for long distance runners. I dare anybody who is a long distance runner to run a lap at 180 steps a minute and change to running at 250 steps per minute. In all my years of being around runners from 35 minute 5k’ers to 2:25 marathoners I don’t know of a single one who concerns themselves with cadence. Changing from one cadence to another is going to throw you into a world of confusion and perhaps an injury. Andy

Response:

Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min.

<snip Did I just kill this thread stone dead or was my rambling just too preposterous? Tim

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. Then can I do a drill running at an as high as possible cadence. Meanwhile, do another drill running at as low as possible cadence. I suspect that there is no such thing as the single "optimum" cadence for *all* runners. Your legs are, in effect, a couple of variable length hinged pendulums hanging from your hips.  Like pendulums, they will have a natural frequency at which they will oscillate.  The frequency of oscillation of a pedulum only depends on its length (or more accurately I suppose, its length from its suspension point to its centre of gravity).  Giving a pendulum a bigger push does *not* increase its frequency of oscillation. Try and experiment.  Take a stick about 18" to 2ft long.  Let it hang from your hand and then start it swinging gently back and forth.  As long as you swing it at the sticks natural frequency, you can swing it using hardly any energy.  Now try swinging at a different frequency or cadence.  You’re find you have to work much harder to *force* it to swing at a different frequency. Now when you’re running, I would argue that the optimum frequency/cadence for *maximum efficiency* (not speed), you need to match your cadence to your legs natural frequency of oscillation.  Now for an average leg length runner, this is probably in the order of 180 but it will vary from runner to runner depending on their leg length, leg centre of gravity and the changes in their effective leg length determined by their running style.  To run at a different cadence from that determined by your natural frequency would require you to do extra work to overcome it.  I’ve realised that when I’m running, when I speed up, my cadence stays the same.  I push harder, float longer (if you know what I mean) but my cadence stays the same.  It’s only during short sprints that I increase my cadence.

        I agree with your analysis of the pendulum leg theory. I also believe that our bodies, if we allow it to, almost naturally finds this optimal cadence. However I also believe that doing cadence drills is a good thing. I often concentrate on increasing my cadence on my warm up and cool downs fro teo reasons. One I’ve found for me my knees hurt much less. Two my legs seem to get a more sever workout, almost as if I had done a weight lifting session. To me it seems that would build strength and endurance for better use during my natural cadence. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -What I don’t think there can be, is a single *correct* cadence for all runners.  I would stick to what feels right for you.  I think most runners will naturally match their cadence and their oscillation frequencies.  A few runners do, I believe, get it wrong because of preconceptions of what "good running style" should look like and end up taking long leaping strides with too slow a cadence.  These are the ones who I suspect end up with knee, shin and heel problems. I’d better stop now.  I think my thoughts are getting overstretched. Tim

Response:

Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. Then can I do a drill running at an as high as possible cadence. Meanwhile, do another drill running at as low as possible cadence. I am not sure whether anyone had asked these questions before. I did feel these drills won’t hurt at least. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Don

Response:

Actually, I have heard of a drill called "Fast feet" where you are supposed to move your feet just as fast as possible. While I keep hearing that 180 is close to optimal for running, I don’t know if they are considering sprinters in that number. As for the "low as possible cadence."  I tried that once and will never do it again.  I was running hitting heel first and paid for it later with an injury. Roger

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. Then can I do a drill running at an as high as possible cadence. Meanwhile, do another drill running at as low as possible cadence. I am not sure whether anyone had asked these questions before. I did feel these drills won’t hurt at least. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Don

Response:

Hi, Don, Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. Then can I do a drill running at an as high as possible cadence. Meanwhile, do another drill running at as low as possible cadence. I am not sure whether anyone had asked these questions before. I did feel these drills won’t hurt at least. Please let me know what you think.

I don’t have a definitive answer for you (I’m still a beginner) but over the last several weeks, I’ve started doing two cadence runs per week. It does get my HR up and my knees really appreciate it because of the shorter strides. Like I say, I can’t give you evidence that it will increase your speed but I really enjoy the workout so the fun quotient has definitely gone up. Good luck, Layne

Response:

Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. Then can I do a drill running at an as high as possible cadence. Meanwhile, do another drill running at as low as possible cadence.

I’d be inclined to go with the higher cadence. Why train for the lowest possible cadence? It doesn’t compute. As in chance of injury. 180/min is optimum for "learning" to become an efficient runner. It is not optimum, as you indicated in your ref to MJ (which is correct, BTW) for all running speeds. 5000m races will normally see a range of cadence from 185 to 205 steps/min 1500m from 200-225 s/m 800m around 230-240 s/m 400m 250 s/m +- some small value (MJ) 100m; 265-280 s/m. So cadence for "learning" to run properly (180 s/m through a wide range of easy efforts) is far different from cadence appropriate during intense, race condition, effort. Practicing quick cadence running, in order to improve form, is included in training programs for beginning runners. Viz, high school track, cross country beginners. And many training programs call for a series of "strides" at the end of a session, to accentuate proper form. I.e., quick strides at a pace slightly slower than the same cadence would normally result in. Quick, high knee lift, baby steps. Denny

Response:

Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. Then can I do a drill running at an as high as possible cadence.

Michael Johnson is a sprinter. 250 is kind of high for a long distance runner. But yes, go ahead and do a drill where you work on as fast a cadence as possible. You may find that your normal cadence will increase. Meanwhile, do another drill running at as low as possible cadence.

This sounds like bounding, a plyometric exercise where you take large steps and try to go as far as possible with each step. — Harold

Response:

Hi: The other day, I had an idea while I was running. The optimal cadence for regular people is 180/min., and even higher for elite, for example, 250/min for Michael Johnson. Then can I do a drill running at an as high as possible cadence. Meanwhile, do another drill running at as low as possible cadence.

I suspect that there is no such thing as the single "optimum" cadence for *all* runners. Your legs are, in effect, a couple of variable length hinged pendulums hanging from your hips.  Like pendulums, they will have a natural frequency at which they will oscillate.  The frequency of oscillation of a pedulum only depends on its length (or more accurately I suppose, its length from its suspension point to its centre of gravity).  Giving a pendulum a bigger push does *not* increase its frequency of oscillation. Try and experiment.  Take a stick about 18" to 2ft long.  Let it hang from your hand and then start it swinging gently back and forth.  As long as you swing it at the sticks natural frequency, you can swing it using hardly any energy.  Now try swinging at a different frequency or cadence.  You’re find you have to work much harder to *force* it to swing at a different frequency. Now when you’re running, I would argue that the optimum frequency/cadence for *maximum efficiency* (not speed), you need to match your cadence to your legs natural frequency of oscillation.  Now for an average leg length runner, this is probably in the order of 180 but it will vary from runner to runner depending on their leg length, leg centre of gravity and the changes in their effective leg length determined by their running style.  To run at a different cadence from that determined by your natural frequency would require you to do extra work to overcome it.  I’ve realised that when I’m running, when I speed up, my cadence stays the same.  I push harder, float longer (if you know what I mean) but my cadence stays the same.  It’s only during short sprints that I increase my cadence. What I don’t think there can be, is a single *correct* cadence for all runners.  I would stick to what feels right for you.  I think most runners will naturally match their cadence and their oscillation frequencies.  A few runners do, I believe, get it wrong because of preconceptions of what "good running style" should look like and end up taking long leaping strides with too slow a cadence.  These are the ones who I suspect end up with knee, shin and heel problems. I’d better stop now.  I think my thoughts are getting overstretched. Tim

Response: