Told cadence is to high to be efficient. 190-200 during tempo runs

U guys are way faster than me, I am 10k 40mins guy. While I am at my race pace, my cadence is around 215-220. So tempo run 195 makes sense to me. Maybe this only happen to people who run slower. Kenyan are too fast!

ohnoit'sbad wrote:

Yes is IT too much. Look at the 13:30/2:10 guys on Strava their cadence is ONLY that high doing 200s. They will run 150 on easy runs 8 minute miles and only start getting to 180 once they get down under 3:10/km. I've seen them doing 3:45 pace with 160. The cadence thing is bullshit, if it's too high you're just cutting ground contact short on purpose which means you're not letting your muscles fully contract and relax. You can get bad shin splints doing this as you build up so much tension in the shin muscles from not letting them load and spring naturally. Just run, don't force anything.

This is interesting. I've been working hard for years to bring my cadence close to 180, which seems to be the magic number. Now that I have a newish Garmin, it gives me immediate feedback, when I download, on my average cadence per mile. I'm rarely at 90 (i.e, 180), but I tend to center in the 87-89 (174-178) range. It's funny how small differentials, once you notice them, can make you feel bad. "Only 87? Jeez." Etc.

I do think that as a GENERAL rule, a little faster is better than a little slower. I never go above 180. When I'm really clicking on tempo runs, I'm at 178-180. But I do think that recovery runs should be slower--and as a result of your post, I'm going to relax a little more next time I'm on a recovery run, rather than stressing about it.

To add to my point, Yuki Kawauchi's cadence in the Boston marathon looks to be a bit over 200. I counted 51 steps in the first 15 seconds of the following video clip, not being as precise as possible because there's no on-screen clock with tenths of second. Anyway 200+ at marathon effort, which is slower than tempo effort, is in the ballpark of the OP (and me).

epicTCK wrote:

another runner wrote:

^ This guy has no clue what he is talking about, don't listen to him.

Here is a good place to start on running form and cadence:

https://runnersconnect.net/running-interviews/train-movement-not-muscle-jay-dicharry/

hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

While most of us know we need to do strength work to truly see results, according to Jay Dicharry, this is a waste of time without also practicing movement and mobility

that's a load of BS!!! lifting can improve your running greatly without any "movement and mobility" exercises.

I think I'll trust an expert on the subject over some guy on a message board that doesn't know what he is talking about.

I think there is some individual variation. People may hit 180 at 10k pace; some are over 190.

But based on some writings, it doesn't seem that 190-95 for a tempo is that unreasonable.

I think it depends on your actual form. I would worry more whether a runner is overstriding and that is gumming up his mechanics as opposed to stride rate. I would not want a runner to interrupt his or her stride in order to hit some arbitrary magic cadence number.

I think cadence can be nice mental cue to make sure you aren't slowing down in a race. It's kind of a hack, but I would occasionally get Led Zeppelin's "Rock and Roll" in my head (180 bpm) to make sure my stride rate wasn't going down the tubes. But for me, it's just a mental cue to make sure I'm not dragging as opposed to letting fatigue overwhelm me in the last 1/3rd of a race. And to be honest, for me, trying to go faster than 180 feels very unnatural for me unless I am doing mile pace work.

Durant_runner11 wrote:

Why is having a 195-200 cadence bad on tempo runs

As a coach of good runners, still running well myself after 41 years of marathons, and a key focus being 'running form', I would 'loosely' agree with your coach.

180 'and over' is no magic number. It was an observation of elites (sub 3min 10km), that kind of grew its own legend.

Just use common sense and do the maths...6:30/mile pace is not 3min/km...at 6:30 you are doing 248 metres per minute. If your rate is 200, that means your stride length is 124 cm (or 49" for the luddites). I don't know about you, but if I am walking at 10min pace my stride is already 90cm (at half your rate), which means that despite a doubling of rate, you have only 'carried your COM 34cm which would imply some type of chopping of stride akin to a Benny Hill sketch :-)

Look at runners with good form, Bekele, Kipchoge et al. They are cruising at 180 to 190 with an increase in stride but no 'overstriding'- i.e. no reach out. The COM is moving while both legs are in air typically covering 175-180cm at their pace. This comes about by higher backlift, pendulum swing (note skinnier lower legs help), contact at same time as COM 'catches up' and lots of energy return to get that high backlift again...and so forth.

You don't have to believe me or troll me or have a go at me if you disagree. Simply keep training as hard as you are and wonder why you fade.

I have run marathons since 1977 with a best under 2:30 and currently still sub 3. I have never ever done 90 miles in one week, most in PB days was 110km, and nowadays only max 70km even for a 90km ultra. I don't fade because as I said, I focus strongly on running form and relating that to economy.

I Am Sam wrote:

Just use common sense and do the maths...6:30/mile pace is not 3min/km...at 6:30 you are doing 248 metres per minute. If your rate is 200, that means your stride length is 124 cm (or 49" for the luddites). I don't know about you, but if I am walking at 10min pace my stride is already 90cm (at half your rate), which means that despite a doubling of rate, you have only 'carried your COM 34cm which would imply some type of chopping of stride akin to a Benny Hill sketch :-)

This is dumb. Those are arbitrary lengths. Stride lengths are not a common measure that is thrown around and discussed, at least for distance running. Why do you get to decide that 124 cm short (assuming you did the math right, I didn't bother to check)? And you think walking at 10 min pace is a meaningful comparison? A normal walk more is more like 20 minute pace. 10 min pace is more than halfway to speedwalking.

Like I posted above, Yuki is doing 200 at marathon effort. He'd be even higher at tempo pace. It doesn't mean he's chopping his stride, and it doesn't mean he fades. It's individual variation. You think just because you point it out, and say focus on form, you can transform the form of someone like Yuki to Walmsley or Jager or Kipchoge's form? That's total fantasy. Not only can it not be done, it's not necessary for performance or preventing "fade". I'm not saying form can't be improved. I do running drills and strides and sprints and am conscious of form and smoothness, and how my legs feel when going fast. But someone who naturally runs with a higher cadence (speaking as one) isn't going to be able to have that float/bounce.

another runner wrote:

epicTCK wrote:

hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

that's a load of BS!!! lifting can improve your running greatly without any "movement and mobility" exercises.

I think I'll trust an expert on the subject over some guy on a message board that doesn't know what he is talking about.

Need to understand the context of that quote.

It's related to those people who have a weak muscle that isn't firing during their runs - let's say glutes. Physios will tell them to do strengthening exercises and that will be a magic fix for their running. Sometimes it will but Dicharry is saying that you need to practice movement and mobility to integrate it into your running. I agree with him.

Yuki has a stride length of around 1.6m if he's doing 200 at 5min/mile.

You're right there is a lot of individual variation in the combination of stride length and cadence. But if one is particularly high and the other particularly low then it's likely that there is room for improvement by bring the lower one up. I believe that's what I Am Sam was trying to say - a 1.24m stride length has room to get out to 1.5m or beyond. I seem to remember calculating that Mo Farah has a stride length of 1.8m.

Whether you should improve stride length by decreasing cadence is the real question to be answered by this thread.

For 136 minutes at 200 strides per minute, Yuki's stride length was 1.55 m. So a hobby jogger with similar cadence pattern as Yuki, should be trying to have the same stride length while running 6:30 miles as Yuki doing 5:11s? Uh, no. Just how do you propose that Yuki or me or the OP increase his stride length? There's normal running training and drills and strides and sprints. Those don't really change a person's cadence relationship with speed.

Mo Farah doesn't have a static stride length. It's going to be shorter at marathon pace than 5K pace. It should be simple to calculate from video, and there is split information in the London marathon thread.

As for your last question, I can answer that, from my experience, I can't decrease cadence to improve stride length. It becomes an artificial bounding stride. Ow, my Achilles just thinking about that. I just tried jogging in place as slowly as I could while having natural rebound, and it was 176. Believe it or not, it doesn't place a ceiling on the top end. I can drop about 4:45 mile pace on several-miles-long gravel/dirt downhills in training as a masters runner (45-50 age group), which is plenty fast for a distance runner.

Wow - that feels an aggressive reply and infers loads of stuff.

I agreed with you that there is a lot of individual variation with stride length and cadence.

But you seem very tied into your own point of view and incapable of not taking things literally.

There's not much point discussing further with someone who isn't open to the possibilities.

Uhhh wrote:

Whether you should improve stride length by decreasing cadence is the real question to be answered by this thread.

The answer is no, you should forget about cadence and just run. Because everyone has different biomechanics. Why would anyone want to try and run in a way which is unnatural for them?

Because they have followed bad advice that's why.

Go on Strava and look at the fast kenyans from Iten then and you'll see what i said is true.[/quote]

any hints as to who to look up on Strava ?

another runner wrote:

epicTCK wrote:

hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

that's a load of BS!!! lifting can improve your running greatly without any "movement and mobility" exercises.

I think I'll trust an expert on the subject over some guy on a message board that doesn't know what he is talking about.

tell that to webb bud. Let's all do yoga!!!! that'll help much more than lifting!!!!

Imho, given your height, cycling cadence history, and desire to avoid injury, I'd stick to what you're doing. Is it the most efficient? Who knows? Kipchoge's around the same height and did ~188 for most of Breaking 2 before slowing down to 184/185. Shitara's also around the same height and rocked ~196-200 (or maybe just under) throughout his 2:06 Tokyo marathon.

Inseam is more important than height when comparing athletes. Most higher level distance runners have longer than average legs but there's still variation within that group.

my cadence during a half marathon was 188. my half marathon pace is basically equal to my tempo pace, within a few seconds per mile probably. for reference, my cadence during easy runs is about 175.

In Meb Keflezighi's book, he talks about increasing cadence and says his is slightly over 180 @ 6min mi pace and over 200 when running faster. Also says those with anything under 160-165 could benefit from higher cadence.

My own point of view here is that there is a lot of individual variation with stride length and cadence, and I provided backup for that view. Seems like you agree with me, but don't want to say that you agree with me. Point out where I made a wrong statement in this thread, and I'll be happy to discuss, because I'm open to possibilities.

I'm being a bit strong, because I see bad advice. There is no training to transform Kawauchi types to Farah types. If anything, for hobby joggers, there are more people that need to go the other way, because their slow cadence is a result of bad form, not wonderful springiness. For the record, if east African elites can be generalized as having long, floating strides, and fast Asians higher cadence (though I'm sure there are exceptions), I'd fit that profile, since I'm ethnically Asian.