Cadence Candor: "Look ma, no gears!"
- Thread starter Bare Lee
- Start date
Intelligence and learning in other areas of science also helps . . .
I think BL's profession gives him more than necessary skills to dissect the literature. I suspect he's spent more than a few hours in the basement of a university library digging through indices and periodicals.
In my experience the sun rises in the east. In science, the earth rotates on its axis towards the east. Folk theories, intuition, and anecdotal evidence may make you happy because they reinforce experience, but it is not the path to truth (although ignorance can be blissful, as you noted above). Forsake your primitive superstitions and see the light! Look, as the studies in those links did, at actual existing runners and see what they do, for example. If you wish to debate their findings or hypotheses, write to them instead of repeating meaningless platitudes here. All I want to do is point to the contrary evidence, which is incomplete but useful to keep in mind. You could tell me that running backwards is where it's at, and I should try it. And I may try it, and if I like it, I may keep doing it, but I wouldn't want to argue for its merits for all runners unless there was more than my experience to back it up. All I'm saying is that a lot of elite, non-Pose, non-Chi, and non-Daniels trainers and many competent researchers have failed to find any merit in the 180 rule, for reasons that make sense to me. I don't think there's any reason to discuss this more, is there? If you're happy in your running, more power to you!
In regards to teaching cadence- I'm careful to explain exactly why we use 180 as a reference point. Part of that explanation is associating cadence and stride length, and explaining why it's important to figure out what works best for the individual.
I've also started discussing the role of shoes and how different geometry will change gait (including peak efficiency). Example: When barefoot, all of us will have an ideal cadence and stride length that results in the most metabolically efficient gait. If we're wearing shoes, that peak may change slightly.
I've also started discussing the role of shoes and how different geometry will change gait (including peak efficiency). Example: When barefoot, all of us will have an ideal cadence and stride length that results in the most metabolically efficient gait. If we're wearing shoes, that peak may change slightly.
OK, that subtlety doesn't come through in the video, as I'm sure you're aware, inherent to the format I suppose. The way you just explained it now makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.
No intend to discredit your intelligence. As long ad you are happy with what you know and how you practice that is what is most important.
Don't worry, I already do a good job of discrediting my intelligence on my own. Happy trails!
No, that's out, too. Our Midwest events will be limited to the Detroit Down and Dirty and the Woodstock trail runs in MI. The Woodstock races are great, up for a road trip?
Backward running is great - really! As a training tool
The reason, imo, why the higher cadence needs to be stressed for runners transitioning to barefoot is because it's a quick easy foolproof way of breaking the overstriding habit caused by running in shoes with a built-up heel.
I had a rare treadmill run today at the gym. Decided to go ahead and do some cadence counting at various speeds. The results looked like this:
14mm pace- 190
13mm pace- 190
12mm pace 190
11mm pace 188
10mm pace 190
9mm pace 190
8mm pace 190
7mm pace 188
6:30mm pace 190
This data suggests to me that my body is dis-engaging from the support time on the ground/treadmill at a very constant rate at a wide range of speeds and range of motions. This data also tells me that I am accomplishing my goal of running technique. It pleases me greatly
14mm pace- 190
13mm pace- 190
12mm pace 190
11mm pace 188
10mm pace 190
9mm pace 190
8mm pace 190
7mm pace 188
6:30mm pace 190
This data suggests to me that my body is dis-engaging from the support time on the ground/treadmill at a very constant rate at a wide range of speeds and range of motions. This data also tells me that I am accomplishing my goal of running technique. It pleases me greatly
Maybe next year. Our youngest is 16 months, and we're taking care of my parents, so we're kind of hyper local for the time being. It's nice to live the traveling life vicariously through you folks though!No, that's out, too. Our Midwest events will be limited to the Detroit Down and Dirty and the Woodstock trail runs in MI. The Woodstock races are great, up for a road trip?
Yah, I've actually been meaning to incorporate running backwards at the ends of my runs. I've heard it's a good cool-down technique.Backward running is great - really! As a training tool
The reason, imo, why the higher cadence needs to be stressed for runners transitioning to barefoot is because it's a quick easy foolproof way of breaking the overstriding habit caused by running in shoes with a built-up heel.
And I get the point about using an unnaturally high cadence as a technique to counteract overstriding, but as Jason says, it seems best to leave it be once a proper foot landing has been accomplished, unless the runner feels more comfortable at a high turnover rate. In one of the article's I read, they found one of the elite distance runners had a pretty constant cadence, even in the final mile, and I think one had a pretty constant stride length, but that most used some combination of the two, that is, increased both, in their final kick. They also found some favoring the opposite of what they normally do when fatigue sets in, as the muscles are used in somewhat different ways.
On yesterday's 8-mile run, I started to get fatigued during the last mile or so, and noticed my form was starting to feel heavy. So I thought about the bit I read about how some elite runners either up their cadence or stride length for their final kicks, choosing the opposite of what is dominant in their normal gaits, to get a fresh burst. I decided to up my cadence a bit, since I'm probably a stride-length dominant runner, and that helped maintain form, and I finished reasonably strong. I wonder if this technique would work for someone who favors a higher cadence. Try switching to a more powerful stride when you feel tired and see if it helps.
OK, after a little more reading, a little more experimenting, here's what I've concluded.
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).
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).
Hey Lee - I think #'s 8 & 9 sums it up pretty well. The only way to increase stride length at a constant pace is to edge into overstriding - and that's risky. Landing with outstrethed legs/locked knees is a bad habit. And barefooting should autocorrect the problem in most people because landing on bare heels hurts like all get out. It's just not normal.
Another small but o-ho piece of the form puzzle - the Achilles tendons. I've messed around with this quite a bit and now really appreciate the free energy boost I get when I let the heels touch down at the end of the landing. Gravity does the work, loads up the Achilles, and then, boing, up come the heels all by themselves on the lift. It's very noticeable on climbs, and it doesn't work when you overstride.
Another small but o-ho piece of the form puzzle - the Achilles tendons. I've messed around with this quite a bit and now really appreciate the free energy boost I get when I let the heels touch down at the end of the landing. Gravity does the work, loads up the Achilles, and then, boing, up come the heels all by themselves on the lift. It's very noticeable on climbs, and it doesn't work when you overstride.
Willie, agreed. My form has been feeling really good lately, and I too notice the power you get from the Achilles. I think my form has always been OK, but with greater experience and intellectualization of the process, it seems to becoming more finely honed these days. I never had a problem with over-striding--at least not barefoot (I don't remember how I ran shod)--so the 180 rule was always kind of a mystery to me, and it just seems odd (counterintuitive) to pull a nice even number like that out of thin air and expect to apply it universally, across the board, to every runner. Organic systems, unlike physical processes, rarely obey neat geometries and algorithms (with the exception of sea shells and the like). However, after my brief reading up on the topic, and after reading the replies/comments here and elsewhere, I would hypothesize that those runners who do find themselves unconsciously gravitating to a high, steady cadence, no matter the pace, are probably what I have termed 'rate-dominant' runners. I would further hypothesize that someone like me, whose turnover only gets up to 180 spm when up around 7mm pace, is probably a stride-dominant runner. This doesn't mean that I'm necessarily over-striding, but rather I am able to deliver sufficient force with each stride to propel me along at 10mm pace with a relatively low cadence of 162-4. It is with this in mind that I found conclusions 6 & 7 (culled from my reading) to also be a bit of a revelation.
Support Your Club
Forum statistics
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Get Your 2024 Wildwood Barefoot Country Music Fest Tickets Here- Latest: stjohnthegambler