Cadence Candor: "Look ma, no gears!"

[Bare Lee]

Lee and Nick, you're just going to have to learn to ignore Agel he has always being a pain in the ass that's why he got kicked ou from the other site-TWICE!

Thanks, I wasn't going to say anything about that, hoping he would take the hint here that a change in style of interaction might be in order. I do believe someone with his talent as a runner has a lot to contribute, but I find the Pose evangelism tiresome.

 

[Barefoot Dama]

Thanks, I wasn't going to say anything about that, hoping he would take the hint here that a change in style of interaction might be in order. I do believe someone with his talent as a runner has a lot to contribute, but I find the Pose evangelism tiresome.

He won't change his style of delivery that is who he is and he doesn't realized how irritating that is.
Like you say he could be a great asset but he just rubs people the wrong way.

 

[Bare Lee]

He won't change his style of delivery that is who he is and he doesn't realized how irritating that is.
Like you say he could be a great asset but he just rubs people the wrong way.

Oh well, reminds me of my creationist cousins. I like your PRs by the way. Inspiring. I just changed my avatar in your honor. That's my wife's foot.

 

[Barefoot Dama]

Oh well, reminds me of my creationist cousins. I like your PRs by the way. Inspiring. I just changed my avatar in your honor. That's my wife's foot.

Why thanks, I feel honored
And I do like your new avi much, much better than the old one.

 

[dutchie53]

Lee, as long as there is no heel landing first, and there is no TMTS, let the rest find it's own way (such as cadence). Sometimes too much input gets to confusing to a newbie. We want them to enjoy the experience and not get hurt.

 

[barefootandagile]

I think semantics is part of it, but the Pose style also makes different assumptions about what's involved. They think the foot should land exactly under the center of gravity, and then one leans forward so that gravity will pull them forward and establish forward momentum. So B&A was probably concerned about the foot being too far forward, since having the foot at all forward is a big no-no. Most of the stuff I've read doesn't subscribe to this view, and I've sided with this stuff, based on my limited knowledge and experience. But I don't generally tune in here for arguments. Once it's clear that opinions are at variance and will continue to be so, I prefer to move on.

Seems you are bringing in things to our discussion. I have only been advocating avoiding the language of telling someone to focus on making there foot land infront of them regardless of whether one thinks it can or can't land directly under.

Drama, hi, I am sure you had a lot to do with me being kicked off the runnersworld forum. Thx again.

 

[Bare Lee]

Lee, as long as there is no heel landing first, and there is no TMTS, let the rest find it's own way (such as cadence). Sometimes too much input gets to confusing to a newbie. We want them to enjoy the experience and not get hurt.

Thanks, I've never coached running to anyone, and have only begun to intellectualize running (technique, biomechanics, training protocols, etc.) in a semi-serious manner since this last spring, so I'm a bit wary of saying anything at all. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Perhaps I'll first try to correct posture and then see how it goes?

P.S., I didn't really intend for this thread to become about my coaching my nephew, so the issue of cadence and coaching has become a bit confused. Cadence is probably one of the last things I would talk about, since I've only just begun to think about it myself.

 

[Bare Lee]

Seems you are bringing in things to our discussion. I have only been advocating avoiding the language of telling someone to focus on making there foot land infront of them regardless of whether one thinks it can or can't land directly under.

OK, point taken. Thanks.

 

[Barefoot Dama]

Lee, as long as there is no heel landing first, and there is no TMTS, let the rest find it's own way (such as cadence). Sometimes too much input gets to confusing to a newbie. We want them to enjoy the experience and not get hurt.

Exactly! I sometimes feel that some people think way too much about "proper running form" the focus should be on making running fun and have a good time.

 

[Bare Lee]

Exactly! I sometimes feel that some people think way too much about "proper running form" the focus should be on making running fun and have a good time.

So do you think I should hold off on any advice and just go for a run with him? He and my brother have come to me looking for tips, so I feel I might be letting them down if I don't suggest anything. Posture is important in everything, so that might be the best place to start.

There is a certain irony in my asking for coaching advice. Until recently I ran without thinking about it too, and it's doubtful I've learned a whole lot of any real consequence from all my reading over the last several months. I guess when I was limited while waiting for my metatarsals to toughen up, I became restless and wanted to know if there's anything I could do besides take it easy. But Sunday and yesterday I was able to run six miles in an hour without any problems, and ran five miles at 9mm pace last week over mild chipseal, so perhaps my troubles are over and I can go back to running a certain distance as fast I can and see what improvements are possible over time. That's how I've always done it.

 

[Barefoot Dama]

Hold the advice about foot under cog/core I think that's what gets lots of people confuse but you coud suggest about engaging their core and things such as head over shoulders, soulders over hips, looking straight ahead, arm swing and things like that.
It has been my experienced that keeping the upper body engaged and aligned the lower body follows.

 

[Bare Lee]

Hold the advice about foot under cog/core I think that's what gets lots of people confuse but you coud suggest about engaging their core and things such as head over shoulders, soulders over hips, looking straight ahead, arm swing and things like that.
It has been my experienced that keeping the upper body engaged and aligned the lower body follows.

Thanks, that's more or less what I had in mind. Your last line put it quite well and succinctly. I'll use that line. One thing though, could you elaborate on arm swing?

 

[barefootandagile]

Lee,

On an easy 4mi run with some young runners I happened to count my cadence during the last mile. Hadn't counted recently and felt like it was slow before taking the reading. Was surprised how slow and easy 192spm felt. I was running 8:45mm pace at the time.

 

[Barefoot Dama]

Thanks, that's more or less what I had in mind. Your last line put it quite well and succinctly. I'll use that line. One thing though, could you elaborate on arm swing?

Arms about waist level swinging back and forth the motion has to come from the shoulders and arms are not to go across you body. Pretend that your hands are holding an egg and you're going to make sure not to break the "egg". Not sure if this explanation is clear.

 

[Bare Lee]

Arms about waist level swinging back and forth the motion has to come from the shoulders and arms are not to go across you body. Pretend that your hands are holding an egg and you're going to make sure not to break the "egg". Not sure if this explanation is clear.

Thanks, that was clear. That's how I run, and with your description in mind, I'll try to make sure my nephew runs that way too. I do notice that a lot of runners kind of curl up the arms inside their torso, but they also tend to be slouched, and often have a pained expression on their faces.

Here's a nice summary from Steve Magness (http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html) on the whole rate/length issue:

"What I’ve found in my years working on running mechanics and in being taught by some of the best minds on the subject, is that I nor them have ever focused on stride rate or length. Those are outcomes of what you do. They are feedback. They are not things you directly change. If you take care of the mechanics, whether it’s arm swing, body position, force application, footstrike or whatever, the rate and length will optimize. Is it useful to measure length and rate? Sure, but remember that they are data. If one of them seems “off” you’ve got to figure out how to fix it."

Basically, he's saying stride rate and length are effects not causes, and that's what has occurred to me, and why it seems like posture and then foot landing are most important. Mostly I'm glad this thread has convinced me that I can go back to my world of three days ago and not think about cadence anymore!

 

[Barefoot Dama]

Thanks, that was clear. That's how I run, and with your description in mind, I'll try to make sure my nephew runs that way too. I do notice that a lot of runners kind of curl up the arms inside their torso, but they also tend to be slouched, and often have a pained expression on their faces.

Here's a nice summary from Steve Magness (http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html) on the whole rate/length issue:

"What I’ve found in my years working on running mechanics and in being taught by some of the best minds on the subject, is that I nor them have ever focused on stride rate or length. Those are outcomes of what you do. They are feedback. They are not things you directly change. If you take care of the mechanics, whether it’s arm swing, body position, force application, footstrike or whatever, the rate and length will optimize. Is it useful to measure length and rate? Sure, but remember that they are data. If one of them seems “off” you’ve got to figure out how to fix it."

Basically, he's saying stride rate and length are effects not causes, and that's what has occurred to me, and why it seems like posture and then foot landing are most important. Mostly I'm glad this thread has convinced me that I can go back to my world of three days ago and not think about cadence anymore!

Totally agree!!!! Nice find!

 

[Bare Lee]

On an easy 4mi run with some young runners I happened to count my cadence during the last mile. Hadn't counted recently and felt like it was slow before taking the reading. Was surprised how slow and easy 192spm felt. I was running 8:45mm pace at the time.

According to one article I read, this would suggest that constant, high turnover favors extra effort in neuro activation over increased force application, and that one or the other may be most appropriate for different kinds of runners, but that most runners favor some combination of both (increased stride rate and stride length) to achieve increased speed. But also that it may be advantageous to favor the opposite of what comes naturally to one when one becomes fatigued. So, no real wrong or right way, but also no real need to worry about it either unless you're running competitively and want a little boost towards the end of a race. I have fairly strong legs, so it probably makes sense to increase force application mainly, and have cadence follow, which is what I think I do.

 

[barefootandagile]

Lee,

. I have fairly strong legs, so it probably makes sense to increase force application mainly, a

What is it you do to increase your force application?

 

[dutchie53]

Lee, one posture check I do with most of my kids that run with me is like Dama, I make sure sure the head is up. Another thing I watch for is that the shoulders do not slouch forward. If they are straight it opens the chest somewhat and make the breathing easier (chest forward type thing).

 

[Bare Lee]

What is it you do to increase your force application?

I run faster.

What the article was saying is that to run faster you can increase stride rate, which costs energy in terms of greater neuro activation, or you can increase stride length, which costs energy in terms of greater force application, or you can do both. Since I'm one of those who 'naturally' does both, but whose differential between rates at different paces isn't that great (164 at 10mm, 180 at 7mm), I'm assuming my body is generally favoring force application over increased cadence as a means to increase speed. I'm then guessing that this may be because my legs are relatively strong, although not unusually so. I'm not built like a distance runner, but more like a safety in football. The one year I went out for track in high school I ran the shorter distances--200, 400, and 800. If one's legs are relatively strong it might make sense to use them for greater force application, rather than spend energy activating (lifting or cycling) them at a greater rate.

But I don't do anything consciously beside will myself to run faster. I have no idea of what's really going on bio-mechanically/physiologically between my will and the resulting locomotion. I would only worry about force application if I began to have problems with typical runner's injuries, which so far hasn't been the case, knock on wood. Although as I mentioned, I can see the advantage of consciously increasing stride rate over challenging surfaces, and wouldn't be surprised if I'm already doing this unconsciously--it might be interesting to measure my cadences over chipseal for example. Of course this would only apply to those of us who run barefoot barefoot. It probably doesn't matter if you run barefoot shod.