Cadence

We usually use the 'two feet' convention, which would be 160-186 in your case. Cadence is a tricky concept because our "180" convention is just a rough guideline with no real basis in research. I tell people to shoot for that when beginning because it's easier to measure than where your feet are landing in relation to your body. The goal is to prevent overstriding, or your foot landing in front of your knee. For most people, running at a cadence of at least 180 will prevent that from happening. HOWEVER, most people will have a faster ideal cadence, and the cadence will change with pace. The trick is finding the point where you're at a peak of metabolic efficiency... cadence isn't too fast or too slow.

How's that for a vague answer? ;)
 
I know mine is a good bit lower than 180, as I run slow as poo, but still with short steps.

I have tried keeping 180 and I always end up going too fast, even with short strides, and I end up getting burned out way too quickly. Slower cadence is the only way I've been able to work up to running more than a few minutes.
 
I tell people to shoot for that when beginning because it's easier to measure than where your feet are landing in relation to your body.
Jason, that doesn't jibe with my experience. I look down at my feet and feel pretty confident that they're landing just in front of my center of mass. Is there any reason I should doubt my self-perception? I've been thinking of running past my video cam anyway, maybe this will motivate me.
 
If your pace is 9:40 per Km, that's slow. If it's miles, you're faster than lots of folks and doing really well for a relative newbie. As far as what your cadence should be, if you are actually running at 9:40, and feel comfortable with your foot speed, you are probably doing fine. Experience will be your best teacher.

As for me, my pace varies depending on the terrain, I think. Downhills, especially on trails it moves higher pretty dramatically. 180 is sort of on the slow side of my regular cadence. I generally feel pretty comfortable when I run, though, so I don't think much about it these days.
 
Jason, that doesn't jibe with my experience. I look down at my feet and feel pretty confident that they're landing just in front of my center of mass. Is there any reason I should doubt my self-perception? I've been thinking of running past my video cam anyway, maybe this will motivate me.

Indeed you should run by that camera ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
According to ismoothrun my cadence this morning was 80 spm max 93. Is that to slow or should I multiply it by 2x. Or maybe I'm just a slow bf runner, avg pace 9:40. :(

In my experience and opinion 180 is a low end figure for cadence. I do agree with Jason that count cadence is easier for runners than knowing where their body is in relation to their feet during impact. My personal cadence range is 192-198 spm. Most people go by how many times both feet touch the ground during one minute.
 
9:40 is per mile. Thanks for ans. my question, I thought 80 was the 2 feet conversion. Glad I asked, thought I was abnormaly slow as far as cadence. 160 is comfortable for me, I find I can increase speed by driving my core forward.
 
Lee,

If I ever decide to make a transition to barefoot running verses barefoot shoe running I will certainly let everyone know. As for how I would transition, it would be quite simple. I would take my shoes off and start running :)

You are more than welcome to come down anytime. Just let me know when.