Nah, more like running naturally, instead of a programmed robot relying on numbers and data.
Cadence Candor: "Look ma, no gears!"
- Thread starter Bare Lee
- Start date
Nah, more like running naturally, instead of a programmed robot relying on numbers and data.
NickW
Guest
I suppose you are more in tune with your body too than some of us because of this lack of reliance on technology and science...
P.S. I'm not making light of the way you are with running and training. I think sometimes people do have too much reliance on technology and have forgotten how to listen or do things in general.
I would presume so as well. Probably everything from the waist down has something to do with it…..well, almost everything.
I wasn’t attempting to draw a conclusion…..just was something curious I noted. Too little to draw a conclusion from.
I’m not sure the bike analogy works taken to that extent. As you inferred, on a bike you are in a fixed position. While running it seems to me that stride length is equivalent of gear changing. Running up hill, there is a shorter distance between my strides to attempt to reduce the overall effort of going up the hill. In order to keep the same stride length AND cadence I have to increase effort.
I think you and I may have a different internalization of what constitutes “knee bending”. To me it isn’t about picking up the knees, it’s more about dropping the hips and ensuring the knee has a nice bend when the front foot is landing. If I think about picking up my knees it affects only my transitioning, not my landing position…..and I tend to hit the ground as more of a “strike” and less of a “land”.
BG, your grumpy, no-nonsense attitude is always a breath of fresh air, but your absolutist stance on no-tech running does come off a bit like a recovering alcoholic extolling the virtues of complete abstinence to a social drinker. Didn't you used to keep a pretty extensive running log? Isn't there a middle ground to jog over somewhere?
Yah, that's the way I took it, but the wording didn't work so well in my reply. Thanks for the suggestion.
Yah, I was wondering whether stride length works a bit like gear change too. The effect isn't as great, but probably similar. I know for high altitude hiking one must take half steps--the equivalent to a 'granny gear' on a 21-speed mountain bike.
Thanks for the clarification. I try to check out various degrees of knee bend or hip drop and see if that makes a difference. Having had some trouble with my metatarsals, I'm all for keeping my strike/landing as soft as possible.
Yah, although I see this period of focused experimentation coming to a close in a month or two, I hope I'm always open to looking at things with fresh eyes from time to time. I've varied my free weights routine a lot over the years, although the basic pattern of doing back stuff one day and front stuff the other has been set for quite some time.
I can only dream of being as natural as you ;-)
Perhaps some of the other posters could speak up of there acknowledgement of cadence caused them to run like a robot. Personally it has given me a greater understanding of natural running and furthered my ability to avheive it.
BG, your grumpy, no-nonsense attitude is always a breath of fresh air, but your absolutist stance on no-tech running does come off a bit like a recovering alcoholic extolling the virtues of complete abstinence to a social drinker. Didn't you used to keep a pretty extensive running log? Isn't there a middle ground to jog over somewhere?
Alcoholic, something I can relate too. Anyways I will stop with my nonsense. Yes I used to keep a log, it drove me nuts. I ran 18 years without a watch or doing any sort of logging, studying, or reading about running. Two years ago I received a garmin as a gift, and with my addictive personality, the data and technology was consuming me and cluttering the freedom I once had with running. So I had to step away from it all. But I love your analogy, I got a kick how ironic it was such a fine match with me. It's all good!
I can relate. I've been over-data-obsessing myself lately, but hopefully it will soon come to an end. All the stuff about pace etc. will probably soon fall by the wayside as soon I get a better feel for my different paces, and a sense for how long I can run at each one. Then I'll just build on that. I'll see if anything comes of these casual cadence considerations. I never used to keep a log either, and I can't see how it really matters, but it's been a good motivational tool over the last year of getting back into shape. I've also been resisting joining a mileage forum, cuz I know with my obsessive streak I would start running for mileage rather than benefit, as I do on hills and fartleks, which are lower mileage runs. Anyway, happy trails!
NickW
Guest
I am very obsessive... That's why I quit using the hr part of my garmin and now just hit start and stop on it so I can keep track of my mileage. I won't look at it till I'm done running though so I don't know my pace or anything till I am done. I was getting really bad for a while there obsessing over my hr, pace, distance, etc... This is also why I had to tell my cousin I will not be joining his fantasy football league this year... I want to keep my wife happy and if I am obsessing over fantasy football too in addition to my running my wife would get awful grumpy. On a happy note I am taking my daughter in today to get some new running shoes because she wants to start running with me 3 days a week. This is a real win because she never wants to run!
This is a real win because she never wants to run!
After posting earlier about my cadence staying at about 180 for 11mm down to 8mm, i decided to check it today and do throw some speed work in there. For the last 4 weeks or so I have been running unplugged so I had no idea where I would be now for cadence. I ran the first 2 miles at 9mm with a cadence of 180. The last 1/2 mile I ran at 7mm and noticed that my cadence was 195 (I stopped and reset the garmin). That surprised me somewhat, I had no idea that it would be that high, it might have felt a little higher but not by that much, I thought it was just my stride length that made me faster. Usually when I check my cadence before I never stopped the garmin and start it over so my previous cadence checks where averaged out for the entire run. So maybe we do have another gear.
I'm techno-averse like BG, and have no idea what my actual cadence runs. Ditto HR.
I think my cadence does go way up when I go into high gear on downhills. Especially when I reach that point where I can see the bottom and can let loose and get my arms flying . If nothing else I think it would look amusing to see a video of me bombing down like that. I still don't know about cadence.
I think my cadence does go way up when I go into high gear on downhills. Especially when I reach that point where I can see the bottom and can let loose and get my arms flying . If nothing else I think it would look amusing to see a video of me bombing down like that. I still don't know about cadence.
Yeah, I hear you JT. I try to go unplugged as much as I can. Every now and then I will throw on the garmin to check on pace and cadence and to check out the distance of a new route. I don't even wear a watch when I go, just a cell in case of emergency.
Most advice is developed from dubious sources. The 180 cadence bit seems to have come from a researcher watching the LA Olympics. He noted elites ran with a cadence of 180 or more. Others have noted that 180 seems to be the universal minimum where you don't overstride too much. Personally, I use it as a training tool to get people thinking about cadence, but most people end up with an ideal cadence higher than 180.
BTW- bending the knees and landing on the forefoot are decent teaching cues, but should never be considered universal advice. There's such a thing as bending the knees too much or landing too much toward your toes. To make matters worse, both may vary not only between different people, but also within one individual depending on conditions.
A good rule of thumb: Don't follow any advice because it's popular, someone that seems knowledgeable says it, or it has some research backing it up. Take new ideas, experiment, and figure out if it works for you.
Ha! I'm glad I never looked into fantasy football--it sounds like a dangerous waste of time. Luckily the Vikes have stunk since I got back, so it's easy to ignore football after the season has gone down the tubes and then come back for the playoffs. The NFL playoffs are about the only sporting event I really get into. I hope your daughter gets into running. I can hardly wait for my kids to get old enough for sports and running.I am very obsessive... That's why I quit using the hr part of my garmin and now just hit start and stop on it so I can keep track of my mileage. I won't look at it till I'm done running though so I don't know my pace or anything till I am done. I was getting really bad for a while there obsessing over my hr, pace, distance, etc... This is also why I had to tell my cousin I will not be joining his fantasy football league this year... I want to keep my wife happy and if I am obsessing over fantasy football too in addition to my running my wife would get awful grumpy. On a happy note I am taking my daughter in today to get some new running shoes because she wants to start running with me 3 days a week.
My cadence is naturally on 200+ regardless of speed my stride is what changes BUT I did read somewhere that if you bike(stationary bike) at 95/100 rpm it will help to achive the so ever elusive 90 spm turnover. Try it.
If nothing else at least you'll know how 90 spm feel like when you bike @ 90 rpm.
If nothing else at least you'll know how 90 spm feel like when you bike @ 90 rpm.
Yah, in April or May of last year I read somewhere that the forefoot strike was key, and totally exaggerated it, and got TOFP. So in this instance, BG's "just do it" guideline would've served me much better. I had already run barefoot 20 years ago without any problems without any analysis. Now my strike/landing is a much more natural 'mid-foot' strike, which means my forefoot lands just a little bit before the rest of the foot, although like you say, the exact manner of strike/landing varies according to temp and terrain.
That's basically what this discussion is all about, and hearing what has worked or hasn't worked from other BRS members is part of the process. I trust their varied experiences and suggestions a lot more than standardized advice. I like reading what the elites do, but as the article I linked to at the beginning of this thread suggests, this can sometimes be misleading for us recreational runners running at sub-elite paces.
Well, I had a fairly hot run yesterday afternoon. I was going to do a lot of cadence stuff at the end, but it was an effort just to finish with a decent overall pace. I did measure my cadence at a 7mm pace however, and it was exactly 180. That pace is still slow by elite standards, of course, but it does confirm Hutchinson's point in the article link: at 10mm pace I'm about 162-4; at 7mm pace I'm 180. I assume if I could run an elite marathon pace of 5mm or less, it'd be up in the 190s. Considering I'm taller than most of the elite guys (they tend to be 5'6"-5'8" or so, right?), who often are over 200 cadence, that seems about right for a guy my size.
So while some of the commentators here are able to sustain fast turnover at slower paces, it makes me wonder if anyone can run fast with a slow turnover rate, unless they're over-striding.
Also, I did try a faster cadence at a 10mm pace--not sure exactly what it was--and although it didn't feel 'natural', it didn't feel terribly awkward either. I could see how the transition could be made fairly easily, and how for individuals with problems of over-striding, it might be worth keeping cadence constant. It might also be a good technique over rougher surfaces like gravel. It's still difficult for me to understand how a faster constant cadence of 180+ could develop unconsciously though, although I can see how it might be a good coaching cue to correct for over-striding, as it's just about impossible to over-stride with that kind of turnover. Still, it seems that an increase in speed is most naturally brought about by both an increase in stride length AND an increase in cadence. It seems strange to control velocity purely through stride length, but as long as the constant cadence rate is taken from faster paces, not slower ones, I guess there's no harm in it, and may help some at slower paces.
I have looked into the issue a bit more since posting this thread, and somewhat 'official' opinions are pretty well divided on whether cadence should remain the same or not. The 180 rule seems to have been first employed by shod runners as a way of controlling over-striding, which, theoretically at least, isn't an issue for barefoot runners, so I doubt cadence really matters all that much if your foot is landing just in front of your center of mass.
Here's another article on how most people use both cadence and stride length to control velocity: http://sweatscience.com/more-about-stride-length-rate-and-cruise-control-for-runners/
So how am I going to coach my nephew this weekend? I'm going to tell him to land his feet just in front of his center of mass, and focus on his posture. If I can't get him to land/strike properly, I may try making him run with a greater turnover, but only until he has mastered the landing. Then I will let him adopt whatever cadence feels best for him. Does that sound reasonable?
So while some of the commentators here are able to sustain fast turnover at slower paces, it makes me wonder if anyone can run fast with a slow turnover rate, unless they're over-striding.
Also, I did try a faster cadence at a 10mm pace--not sure exactly what it was--and although it didn't feel 'natural', it didn't feel terribly awkward either. I could see how the transition could be made fairly easily, and how for individuals with problems of over-striding, it might be worth keeping cadence constant. It might also be a good technique over rougher surfaces like gravel. It's still difficult for me to understand how a faster constant cadence of 180+ could develop unconsciously though, although I can see how it might be a good coaching cue to correct for over-striding, as it's just about impossible to over-stride with that kind of turnover. Still, it seems that an increase in speed is most naturally brought about by both an increase in stride length AND an increase in cadence. It seems strange to control velocity purely through stride length, but as long as the constant cadence rate is taken from faster paces, not slower ones, I guess there's no harm in it, and may help some at slower paces.
I have looked into the issue a bit more since posting this thread, and somewhat 'official' opinions are pretty well divided on whether cadence should remain the same or not. The 180 rule seems to have been first employed by shod runners as a way of controlling over-striding, which, theoretically at least, isn't an issue for barefoot runners, so I doubt cadence really matters all that much if your foot is landing just in front of your center of mass.
Here's another article on how most people use both cadence and stride length to control velocity: http://sweatscience.com/more-about-stride-length-rate-and-cruise-control-for-runners/
So how am I going to coach my nephew this weekend? I'm going to tell him to land his feet just in front of his center of mass, and focus on his posture. If I can't get him to land/strike properly, I may try making him run with a greater turnover, but only until he has mastered the landing. Then I will let him adopt whatever cadence feels best for him. Does that sound reasonable?
