Yep Jason I read first about the 180 rule of thumb in your book and also the suggestion on a metronome app for my phone (thanks, as I would never had thought of that myself!). I never actually measured it but I figure my previously shod cadence had to be 150 or maybe even less, as I took long slow strides, and had terrible lower leg pains. I know 180 may not be exact for me or anyone but its got to be way better than less than 150! And so far everything has been going great!
180 Cadence: When and Why You Should Ignore the Rule
- Thread starter Last Place Jason
- Start date
So thanks to this thread and the other one by Bare Lee, I was curious and measured my cadence. At my most relaxed pace I was around 190. Counted it twice. Upped the pace and it came in at 202. Tried to slow way down, simulating a rough condition pace, and still had a 180 cadence. So what I gathered from all of this was that my cadence did not vary as much as I thought as I varied my pace, and it is much faster now than the min-shoe days. I think the last time I counted was a year ago in VFF's. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was in the 160 to 170 range.
So when should you ignore the rule? If it doesn't feel right. Two years ago when I heard of this number, I tried to do it and it caused a shearing effect and made the front of my leg sore. Now, barefoot and with better form, it feels right to have a faster cadence.
So when should you ignore the rule? If it doesn't feel right. Two years ago when I heard of this number, I tried to do it and it caused a shearing effect and made the front of my leg sore. Now, barefoot and with better form, it feels right to have a faster cadence.
Sounds like you did ignore the rule Rick; you let your body decide unconsciously what your natural cadence was before measuring it. There's still no hard evidence that imposing a given cadence, fast or slow, does any good, unless you're an overstriding shoddie or a barefooter whose feet are incapable of guiding the rest of the leg and body towards a proper foot landing.
For me the 180 rule is imprinted in my psyche, it's something I'm aware of but not something I obsess about as there are too many variables. However I will do form checks at regular intervals to make sure my stride length is kept under control and that I'm relaxed and not pounding.
I doubt you'd find many (successful) barefoot runners running much below a 170-180 cadence.....unless they were quite long legged. My working theory is that if you ran at a signficantly slower cadence, your form would be off.....either heel striking, over striding, bouncing (exagerated verticle movement), or all of the above. To Jason's point, you would not be efficient. At the end of the day though, it's just a tool, and we all likely have a different number that is "ideal" at a given pace, on a given terrain. Mine fluxuates between 185 and 230 depending on uphills, downhills, and pace.....but most often I'm in the 192-195 range (at least I was the last time I checked).
I would agree it is most useful to discuss this with new runners if they are struggling with form. But if their turnover seems reasonable and their foot landing seems good, then why give them something else to think about ?
I would agree it is most useful to discuss this with new runners if they are struggling with form. But if their turnover seems reasonable and their foot landing seems good, then why give them something else to think about ?
Yah, it's hard to imagine much below 160. I checked myself at 10mm pace, and was about 164. At 7:30 pace, I was right at 180, but I have somewhat long legs, at a little over 6'1", hence somewhat longer strides and so a lower cadence than what might be ideal for someone shorter. Part of Usain Bolt's success is that he has such a long stride, but you can see his foot landing is right in front of his center of mass, so need to worry about what his cadence is. I agree with a significantly lower cadence the form would be off, but that's where barefoot running comes in, right? It makes bad form difficult to attain, and so ensures an efficient cadence will be arrived at unconsciously.
I have always ignored cadence, and only recently started measuring it, it turned out to be 182 at several different speeds on pavement, so reliably that I could time myself by counting steps.
Now I'm going back to ignoring cadence again. Not gonna fix what apparently ain't broke.
Now I'm going back to ignoring cadence again. Not gonna fix what apparently ain't broke.
