Beginners cadence questions

[Spinningwoman]

This is probably obvious, but I am a bit confused. I feel like it would be helpful for me to focus on my cadence a bit to try avoid dropping into my old 'jogging' pace that feels natural but doesn't really 'spring'.

I know the figure of 180 is bandied around but accept I may not be up to that. However, is that 180 (or whatever other figure is quoted) referring to both feet hitting the ground (ie a stride consists of of one left foot step and one right foot step) or do you count each time either foot hits the ground? (ie a step = a stride, whether left or right?). Some of the metronome apps I've looked at only go up to 90.
Also, am I right in thinking that the only run trackers that measure cadence at present are the more expensive Garmins that link to the footpod?
Thanks.

 

[Wayne Whiting]

It's every time a foot hits the ground. You can count every step for 15 seconds and multiply x4. I count every step of my left foot for 1 minute. According to Ken Bob Saxton a cadence of 180 is the minimum. Watching him at his presentation I would say his cadence is closer to 200. I can't help you with a run tracker that measures cadence, but once you get a feel for a 180 cadence you will know if you are there are not.

 

[Spinningwoman]

Thanks, Wayne. I guess it was a stupid question as thinking about it, if it wasn't every foot that would make it 360 if you did count every foot, which would be ridiculous. Numbers tend to slide off my brain.

 

[mokaman]

Thanks, Wayne. I guess it was a stupid question as thinking about it, if it wasn't every foot that would make it 360 if you did count every foot, which would be ridiculous. Numbers tend to slide off my brain.

Its not a stupid question really....the 180 is for both feet...when trying to increase cadence I would use a metronome or music and try to increase 2 or 3 beats at a time...stay with the new cadence for at least a few days or till your comfortable before moving up again. Thats not the only way to increase its its teh way I prefer... others may have different ways to do it. Over the years I've kind of settled in to around 185ish.

 

[ChasingShadows]

Mine could possible still do with being higher, but it's a long, long way from where it was! I know some people find it quite easy as they already run with fairly high cadence before the shoes come off - I was not one of those people! There was no way I could have just instantly got it to 180 & I don't do running to music or a metronome, so I did intervals, but of increased cadence rather than speed - nothing structured, just as and when. Now I just start running a song with 180bpm through my head if I feel the need.

 

[Sid]

I know the figure of 180 is bandied around but accept I may not be up to that. ...
Also, am I right in thinking that the only run trackers that measure cadence at present are the more expensive Garmins that link to the footpod?

Ah, cadence. When I first started, I was uncertain if I was running at the proper cadence. Then I realized it was simply three steps per second. If one has any musical or dance training, then it's similar to a waltz. 1 2 3, 1 2 3, 1 2 3. If you know the Blue Danube, then you have your own built in metronome. No need for expensive gear! See time=2:30 on the video below. They're moving their feet at a cadence of 180, but there's no need for fancy foot work when running!

 

[JosephTree]

I've been BFrunning for a lot of miles over the last 3 1/2 years. I never have been able to hold the "count" in my head for more than a minute or two. I just go for what feels right. Going for light and easy, with the very occasional foray into a little faster is all I do for cadence consciousness. I might be an outlier on this issue, but I don't think I'm alone. It might well be connected to my dancing ability, which, while insignificant, diminishes to about zero if I try to count a rhythm.

Another song based strategy I've heard of is to find popular music that has the right tempo. One I remember some people like to hold in mind is "Turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so..."

 

[Bare Lee]

I'm with JT. My cadence naturally goes up
1) when I run faster (note the 180 rule was taken from watching elite marathon runners running about twice as fast as us recreational runners)
2) when I'm fatigued, and
3) when I'm running on rougher terrain.

But a lot of people, especially those running with footwear, find a consciously high cadence useful for avoiding over-striding, lifting the feet, etc. Just remember
1) Ken Bob, despite his vast experience practicing and coaching barefoot running, doesn't necessarily have the right approach for everyone; and
2) an artificially high cadence will interfere with your running economy, so if you're not overstriding, you might be better off letting your own body's proprioception figure out what its optimal cadence for a given pace is. For more discussion, look for the "cadence candor" thread buried deep somewhere, among others.

 

[mokaman]

But a lot of people, especially those running with footwear, find a consciously high cadence useful for avoiding over-striding, lifting the feet, etc.

Especially beginners with bad running form...getting your cadence up near 180 can correct general bad form in many ways.

an artificially high cadence will interfere with your running economy, so if you're not overstriding, you might be better off letting your own body's proprioception figure out what its optimal cadence for a given pace is.

That's true and it causes an awkward stride like a running in place feeling...a low speed where the cadence needs to be slower is different for everyone depends on a lot things.

So when a new runner starts out they should try to increase their cadence gradually the same time they are getting into better shape and as their form improves...they all go hand in hand as speed goes up. The speed will get high enough 180ish will be there all the time and it will not need much if any attention after that.

 

[Bare Lee]

Especially beginners with bad running form...getting your cadence up near 180 can correct general bad form in many ways.



That's true and it causes an awkward stride like a running in place feeling...a low speed where the cadence needs to be slower is different for everyone depends on a lot things.

So when a new runner starts out they should try to increase their cadence gradually the same time they are getting into better shape and as their form improves...they all go hand in hand as speed goes up. The speed will get high enough 180ish will be there all the time and it will not need much if any attention after that.

We're basically in agreement, except I would qualify the absolute stance on new runners consciously increasing their cadences, to more of a 'try it and see if it helps' than an 'everyone should do this' sort of advice.

Also, another technique for correcting bad form is to simply run faster, even in the very beginning, for a limited amount of time, and then try to transfer that feeling to slower paces. Of course, this assumes not being completely out-of-shape or very overweight, so it won't work for everyone.

I've never coached anyone, but do have experience as a teacher, and have a lot of experience in sporty activities. I just doubt any one cue or technique is going to work for everyone. Personally, it took me a while to learn to ignore a lot of this pat bfr advice and just trust the barefeets, and this has served me well. Not because the advice was wrongheaded, but because it was sold as a set of rules that everyone must follow. So I investigated it, and found the pro trainers/researchers present a much more complicated picture. Barefoot running is really no different from shod running, it's just that bare feet permit the sole's natural proprioceptive capacity to guide us. So it's kind of perverse for barefoot runners to ignore other aspects of proprioception and over-ride it with invented numbers. So while it's good to read the barefoot books (although I never have), it's probably best to read the pro books. Or read no books at all and just run and get better.

My own experience with CCC (conscious cadence counting) is that at 10mm pace, 180 cadence feels awkward and tiring--about 164 steps per minute is my natural cadence at that pace--but at 8mm pace 180 feels about right. I don't often run much faster than that, and haven't counted steps when I do, but I would be surprised if my cadence didn't get up near 190-200 at 6mm pace.

Congrats on the excellent long run by the way!

 

[Refoman]

I just doubt any one cue or technique is going to work for everyone. Personally, it took me a while to learn to ignore a lot of this pat bfr advice and just trust the barefeets, and this has served me well.

Well said! When I first started working toward minimal running, I got a Garmin FR60 with a heart rate monitor and a footpod. I quickly got my cadence to, and sometimes over 180. As I progressed to more minimal shoes a high cadence, at times, would cause hip trouble. I quit worrying about cadence (i.e., lower cadence) and the pain subsided. Other times the gluts or thighs would hurt, and they would feel better if I ran faster. Like you said, "just trust the barefeets."

 

[Sid]

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/fitness-coach/What-Is-the-Optimal-Running-Cadence.html

 

[Spinningwoman]

One of the reasons I was wondering about the watch is that I would rather have something that told me what my cadence was, as opposed to something telling me what it should be. That way I would hopefully get a feel for it rather than have a metronome snapping at my heels.
Sid, I don't see quite how the waltz thing works - just counting in threes isn't going to affect the cadence. Waltzes may be stepping 1,2,3 but there's nothing to say whether those three steps take them one second or two. It's a tempo, not a cadence.

 

[Larry]

If you've got $250 to splash on a cheap running watch, the motoactv by motorola does cadence without any footpod (although you only see it after you finish), and it does all the other run tracking things that garmin watches do. It's looking like motorola has discontinued it, so it could be a dead end from a tech standpoint, but that shouldn't matter if you just want avoid paying big bucks for a garmin with a footpod.

On cadence, I suspect that you need to be doing a certain pace to be able to maintain 180 without running in a rather silly manner, so if you're only shuffling along and doing 165/170, that might be just fine. I run with a running group that runs a slow 1.5km to start, and I can't get anywhere near 180 on that part of the run. What I tend to do is run along normally, and if I feel like I'm plodding a bit, I tell myself to turn my feet over a little faster without changing much else. I find that if I do that, it irons out the plodding feel and I tend to run a fraction quicker.

 

[Sid]

Waltzes may be stepping 1,2,3 but there's nothing to say whether those three steps take them one second or two. It's a tempo, not a cadence.

Ah, sorry about the confusion. Yes, every dance has it's own tempo. The Viennese waltz that I linked is around 180bpm, 3 steps per second.
"Viennese Waltz – International — the recommended tempo is 150-180 BPM (beats per minute)"
www.hollywoodballroomdc.com/recommended-tempos-for-dance-music/

Just disregard everything that I said in my post. If you're not already familiar with the waltz, it's best to just focus on one foot in front of the other!

To be honest there's a lot of things that one can obsess over when running. I think that a natural cadence develops with time and more experience. When I became more comfortable with running, I counted my cadence once. As it was around 180ish, I never thought about it again. I now run on trails, so I just let the terrain and my energy level dictate the cadence.

 

[mokaman]

One of the reasons I was wondering about the watch is that I would rather have something that told me what my cadence was, as opposed to something telling me what it should be. That way I would hopefully get a feel for it rather than have a metronome snapping at my heels.
Sid, I don't see quite how the waltz thing works - just counting in threes isn't going to affect the cadence. Waltzes may be stepping 1,2,3 but there's nothing to say whether those three steps take them one second or two. It's a tempo, not a cadence.

I gave my daughter a Garmin FR70 running watch that she wanted for treadmill running with the footpod...has no GPS and uses the footpod for cadence and distance/speed. I tried it out on local road and it was pretty accurate on the distance...I'm not sure how useful the cadence part would be in the long run though.

As far as a metronome you don't need it on all the time just need to do a few spot checks here and there to see what your current cadence is...a free phone app would work just fine for that.

 

[mokaman]

We're basically in agreement, except I would qualify the absolute stance on new runners consciously increasing their cadences, to more of a 'try it and see if it helps' than an 'everyone should do this' sort of advice.

Congrats on the excellent long run by the way!

Thanks

 

[Wayne Whiting]

Spinning Woman - Never a stupid question in my mind as this lively discussion has proven. I've only been at this a few months and I have plenty of questions even after running shod for 38 years.

Some great thoughts here. Intervals were mentioned. One benefit from running intervals is to fine tune your pace clock for race day. Quarter mile repeats is one of my favorite workouts and I am always amazed at how close I can come to my target pace without looking at my watch - always right on or within one second. I think there is an internal "cadence clock" as well after a little practice.

Technique has always intrigued me. I once lived in an area where we had a half dozen guys who ran 2:12 or faster for the marathon. They would frequently pass me on my route and I never knew they were there. How do they do that? Then there was the video of Alberto Salazar crossing the Greensboro Bridge in his 1981 marathon record run in 1981. It looked like he was riding a bicycle. No up and down movement at all.

 

[Spinningwoman]

Ok, another obvious question. I tried bumping up my cadence today and found my speed and heart rate followed - not particularly surprising , but I couldn't seem to hit a higher cadence while still keeping a pace I could sustain.

 

[NickW]

Take shorter steps. If you want to keep same pace at a higher cadence you MUST take shorter steps, otherwise if you keep your stride length the same logically your pace will increase when you increase your cadence. Takes some practice to do but you'll get it.