Beginners cadence questions

[Bare Lee]

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.

That's because step rate and stride length (force application) tend naturally (unconsciously) to co-vary. The idea behind inducing an artificially high cadence at a steady pace is to reduce stride length. It will feel awkward and tiring at first, because it requires higher energy inputs to do this (that is, it's inefficient). Pose practictioners in particular learn to run at artificially high cadences quite well, so if you stick to it, you'll get the hang of it. Well it's worth doing so, is something you'll have to figure out on your own .

Edit: opps, I duplicated Nick's answer . . .

 

[Spinningwoman]

Yes, I know it's obvious, but I feel like my steps are already really short. Also , isn't each step a certain amount of effort almost regardless of the distance it travels?

Ok, this crossed with the previous post, which does go a long way to answering it.

 

[Bare Lee]

Here's what I concluded after reading up on it and posting a thread (http://www.thebarefootrunners.org/threads/cadence-candor-look-ma-no-gears.7179/page-8) on it:
1.) Speed is a function of stride rate and stride length.
2.) Both rate and length are effects, not causes. Stride rate is an effect of greater muscle activation; stride length is an effect of greater force application.
3.) Most runners increase both muscle activation and force application to achieve greater speed, and have a natural ability to adjust (or 'gear') the ratio of rate (activation) to length (force/torque) for optimal metabolic efficiency.
4.) If, however, you hold speed constant, and increase either muscle activation or force application, then the other variable must decrease.
5.) Both muscle activation and force application involve energy costs, so there is no inherent advantage in increasing one while holding the other constant (thus increasing speed) or decreasing it (maintaining speed constant). You are merely displacing the work of one by increasing the work of the other. If the ratio becomes sub-optimal as a result of these manipulations, you will tire more quickly.
6.) Nonetheless, different runners may favor one or the other side of the rate-length ratio, so that there exist rate-dominant runners, and length-dominant runners.
7.) For a rate-dominant runner, it may be useful to increase stride length/force application when fatigue sets in, in order to relieve muscle activation. For stride-dominant runners, it may be useful to increase stride rate/muscle activation when fatigue sets in, in order to relieve force application.
8.) For over-striders, typically those coming from a shod running background, it may be useful to consciously increase stride rate in order to decrease stride length, holding speed constant.
9.) For those with a good foot landing and posture, it is probably pointless to consciously manipulate stride rate (muscle activation) or stride length (force application).

 

[Sid]

It will feel awkward and tiring at first

That's the trick isn't it? Developing proficiency in several areas: HR, cadence, breathing, stride length, foot strength, flexibility, endurance, terrain, incline, heat, cold, VO2 max, etc. It all just takes practice. One can get overwhelmed, if one thinks about it all too much. I try not to spend more time thinking about exercise, than I actually spend doing it. I try to focus on just one goal at a time, whether it be speed, distance, terrain, etc. That also reduces the risk of overtraining and injury.

 

[scedastic]

two suggestions:
1. running in place. i did this during the early weeks once in a while to get a feel for 3 steps per second. i did it while my microwave timer was going.

2. music that you know has a high bpm.

note: eventually, you just do a cadence that "feels" right for the speed, but to start with, you dont' know that, having worn shoes for so many years. So think of these cadence crutches as a way to get to the ball park, not how to actually nail it.

 

[Spinningwoman]

Has a go with a vibrating metronome today as per my mileage report and it was great! I thought I would feel really pushed, but it was quite the opposite; I felt really bouncy and dance-y and my feet felt much less tired but also more all-over tired as if I was using them more completely.

 

[DNEchris]

Here's another study
And another set of reasons for 180+ cadence!

 

[Spinningwoman]

Also interesting was the other study referred to on that page that new runners do not self-select their optimum stride rate for a pace but tend to take fewer longer strides than would be optimum. That was definitely true for me. Running with the metronome was a real eye opener - just picking up the cadence has transformed how I feel running now. I am finishing every run feeling that I could start to and do it again if I wanted to.

 

[Bare Lee]

Here's another study
And another set of reasons for 180+ cadence!

C'mon Chris, you gotta read the details and in between the lines of these studies. Spinningwoman is having success with the artificially high cadence, like a lot of others, and that's great, but that study proves nothing. It even says that none of the runners tested (presumably all shoddies) had any knee issues to begin with, and that just adopting a midfoot landing can alleviate knee stress just as well. Well, who lands with a midfoot landing? Barefoot runners of course! For me at least, just running barefoot leads to good form and allows my CNS to automatically select an optimal cadence, per pace, terrain, fatigue, and so on. I'm not saying folks shouldn't experiment with higher cadences, I just don't think it should be prescribed for everyone across the board, especially when the recommendation comes packaged with a one-size-fits-all step number.

 

[Spinningwoman]

I think it is very similar to what happened when I learned to sing. I was very nervous of singing in public (required by my job) because I had difficulty hitting the high notes. The teacher said, sing higher. Turns out my nervousness at being a 'poor singer' meant I was trying to sing alto when I was a natural soprano. When I shifted the whole caboodle up a notch, I found I could sing just fine.
Same here. I'm a not very good beginning runner, and running fast must be harder than running slow, so I run slow. And it is hard, so that confirms my belief that I can't run well yet... Etc. then I try running with a faster step and discover that that makes it easier, instead of more difficult. I would not have discovered that 'naturally' because my preconceptions seemed perfectly logical, just like I would never have tried singing higher 'naturally' when I already had problems hitting high notes.

That doesn't mean everyone is a soprano, and I daresay it doesn't mean everyone would be better running with a higher cadence. I'm a small woman with not much leg length to get through the air in 0.33 of a second<g>. That probably makes a difference.

It probably does mean that it never hurts to try stuff. (except bad stuff, obviously<g>.). You never know when your preconceptions might be getting in the way.

 

[Bare Lee]

It probably does mean that it never hurts to try stuff. (except bad stuff, obviously<g>.). You never know when your preconceptions might be getting in the way.

That's what I've concluded, give this stuff a try, especially if running is new to you, but don't let any of it become the new preconception, the new orthodoxy. What works for some, may not work for others. For cadence, I was just throwing out the counterargument, and pointing out some of the trade-offs involved, not trying to dissuade anyone from giving it a try. I myself have benefited from the cadence discussion, as I now often consciously up my cadence a bit when I'm getting fatigued (although this often happens naturally on its own), as per my point 7 above. I still find the underlying numerology kind of silly, but to each their own.

 

[DNEchris]

C'mon Chris, you gotta read the details and in between the lines of these studies. Spinningwoman is having success with the artificially high cadence, like a lot of others, and that's great, but that study proves nothing. It even says that none of the runners tested (presumably all shoddies) had any knee issues to begin with

I kinda liked this line "When running at 110% of their normal turnover, the runners experienced 14% less peak knee joint forces." Reported about their "Runner A" running at just over 180 cadence.

Straining the body less sounds like a good plan to me!

And then there's this "Second, less loading on the knee meant more impact forces elsewhere. ........[but] This isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when the other sites are better able to handle impact forces."

 

[Bare Lee]

I kinda liked this line "When running at 110% of their normal turnover, the runners experienced 14% less peak knee joint forces." Reported about their "Runner A" running at just over 180 cadence.

Straining the body less sounds like a good plan to me!

And then there's this "Second, less loading on the knee meant more impact forces elsewhere. ........[but] This isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when the other sites are better able to handle impact forces."

Sure, but "14% percent less peak knee joint forces" doesn't necessarily mean "straining the body less" by fourteen percent if there was no strain to begin with. You can't have 14% less of nothing. And none of the runners reported any strain to begin with. Walking of course would lead to even less peak knee joint forces (along with less heart stress, less muscle fatigue, etc.), so reductio ad absurdum, we should just walk, right? Or maybe not exercise altogether.

I think one has to entertain the possibility at least, that (1) running isn't inherently bad for the knees, and (2) a healthy, athletic/experienced runner's CNS is able to optimize stress distribution throughout the body within normal ranges, provided they're running with good form. Of course, there's always the danger of overtraining, but that's a separate issue, generalizable to any athletic endeavor. More and more, folks are realizing that understressing the body is just as big a problem as overstressing it. Use or lose it and all that.

I guess I'm particularly wary of the whole running is bad for your knees argument, because I myself was under this impression, and had always limited my mileage and frequency. But I'm finding, thanks in part by following your fine example, that I'm perfectly capable (so far, after just a few weeks) of running nearly every day without any undue strain on my knees. On the contrary, my initial impression is that running more frequently is further alleviating my MCL issue.

 

[DNEchris]

I guess I just like the higher cadence cool-aid as it has kept me injury free for the last 4 years with a fairly high mileage.

It also seems to work for Chris McDougall, who is by no means a small dude (6' 4" and about 240 lbs). I've run with him a few times and he is certainly quick with his turnover - before he learned how to run well he reports that he was continually injured.

I believe high cadence works for the vast majority - you may be an exception (and that's fine).

 

[migangelo]

question. if everyone was a sorpano, who would be left to get whacked?



ps. SW (American humor if you don't get it)

 

[Spinningwoman]

I almost added a 'no Soprano jokes' clause when I posted it<g>.

 

[Bare Lee]

I guess I just like the higher cadence cool-aid as it has kept me injury free for the last 4 years with a fairly high mileage.

It also seems to work for Chris McDougall, who is by no means a small dude (6' 4" and about 240 lbs). I've run with him a few times and he is certainly quick with his turnover - before he learned how to run well he reports that he was continually injured.

I believe high cadence works for the vast majority - you may be an exception (and that's fine).

Well, I never said it doesn't ‘work’ for me, I just don't believe it's necessary, and that there are trade-offs involved in terms of running economy and possibly screwing things up elsewhere. This is also what many of the pro-type sites and articles I've looked at say, including that link that Sid posted on page one of this thread. (Also, I don't consider Chris McDougall an authority on running, and I've never read his book, although I certainly appreciate all he's done in promoting barefoot/minimalist running.)

And I do find it ironic that the 180-step rule has become orthodoxy among a subset of barefoot runners. For me, aside from the sensuous pleasure of barefooting, one of the main benefits of barefoot running is that so many form and technique issues just fall into place on their own, including running with a shorter stride, which is one of the main reasons given for adopting a higher cadence. Granted, I come from an athletic background and have enjoyed a fairly active lifestyle most of my life, so that has to be taken into account too. I've come to accept that a higher cadence may be beneficial when inactive or un-athletic folks are first starting out.

As far as injury prevention, I don't doubt that a higher cadence may help in some areas, because it necessarily leads to less force application per stride, given a constant pace. However, if one doesn't have any injury issues, I see no reason to believe that a higher cadence is necessary. I have a sort of don't fix what ain't broke stance I guess. And then there's the possibility that an artificially high cadence may create problems elsewhere without our knowing about it. Something no-one in the 180 crowd seems to acknowledge. I believe our central nervous systems generally know what they’re doing when it comes to breathing, cadence, and so on. All we really have to do is take off our shoes and adopt an erect yet relaxed posture. This second part can be tricky of course if you don’t have a background in sports. That’s where I believe most of the coaching should focus. When I see other runners, I see posture and foot landing, good and bad, that’s about it.

In general, I tend to take an evolutionary perspective on this, and trust that several million years of bipedalism, and 1-2 million years of endurance running, have ironed out most of the details, including optimal cadence per pace, provided we allow our bodies to function as they were meant to—i.e., allow our feet to provide full proprioceptive feedback and run with good posture.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. There are enough non-cadence-counting commentators on this thread alone to put paid any assertion about who’s in the majority. And so I would ask that whenever someone asks questions about this or any other controversial/debatable issue (MAF training, stretching, nose-breathing, and all the rest) we can all accept that there are two sides to the story, and just say something like, well, this is what works for me, when we give advice or present counterarguments. In the end, we're only projecting what we ourselves have found beneficial. There is no scientific consensus on any of these issues. That’s why, when in doubt, I look to what the pros are doing.

 

[Sid]

I suspect that there is an ideal cadence, stride length, form, rate of breathing, footstrike which depends upon the runner's experience, conditioning, level of fatigue, pace, hydration, glycogen stores, humidity, elevation, incline, terrain, precipitation, windspeed, air quality.

 

[DNEchris]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Correct.

Genug!

 

[Spinningwoman]

It seems to me that you may just be choosing to control different factors in the same equation. Bare lee is saying that it will all work out if you get posture right, Chris is saying it will all work out if you get cadence right. Both of those could be true, in that each may be a different way in to achieving the same overall effect. Bare Lee, I don't see why working on posture is any less artificial than working on cadence. And if cadence can lead to good posture, it has the advantage that cadence is a whole lot easier to describe and change.