Is cadence of md-160s at 6:30 pace too low?

The 5'6/115 guy is light on his feet. I'm shocked. Comparisons to jockey sized runners is probably not a great starting point for most people.

A simple way to measure all this if you have a Garmin, get either a pod or HRM pro. If you're bouncy but have a long stride it shouldn't matter too much because you'll still have a low ratio. All the cadence data is graphed out after every run.

A whole bunch of factors will come into cadence. Leg length obviously, long or short arms effect swing, big or small feet for ground contact time (big feet more area to connect with the ground and release), fitness levels... Humans don't have the exact same build so to say everyone should have the exact same cadence is idiotic.

Moran alert wrote:

Yeah, in the warm-up at the beginning of the video (not including the slow-mo, obviously), I counted about 28 steps per 10 seconds, so that equates to around 168 per minute.

Yes, clearly not 180 its much lower. Counted similar.

180 for all paces is an (wrong) imagination, based on Daniels.

Cadence should be elastic. There is a lower limit for efficiency where running becomes bounding or plodding. For me that is around 160 (6'0", 150 lb) so easy runs are about 160-5. 10k+ race around 170, mile 180, 800 190+, full sprint at 220.

Those in the 180 all the time category only have one tool for pace change is more power. Those with elastic cadence have two ways. Count steps in Olympic 10k at 3 laps vs 25th and there will be a distinct difference. Increasing cadence is absolutely critical for kicking well.

what kipchoge is doing in that video is below easy or recovery running. he is just shuffling around briefly to loosen up.

I'm 188 cm tall -- longer than avg legs.

I used to avg in the 160-170s for most all paces. Had a bad year with a lot of achilles issues and spent a lot of time working on form and cadence and turnover. Now my cadence never goes below 175 -- but usually stays in the 180 range (unless I'm doing track workouts faster than 1500, then it's closer to 185). Injuries woes have disappeared and I'm hitting new PRs.

The hip problem has nothing to do with cadence.

Don't fixate on cadence, ever.

My guess is you need more 6:30s and take some walking breaks.

The bouncy stride is more indicative of A) a lack of speed work or B) a higher % FT

While running with one of Americas fastest ever we got on topic about this, he had never counted and on an easy run he checked and was exactly 180. Maybe its just natural for fast runners. I was around 168 to his 180 that day.

yer clueless wrote:

lexel wrote:

And what? :)

What did you notice about his stride rate and stride length at 6.30/mile pace and 4.30?

yeah, I like his running and he is a short guy and I counted for 20sec and estimated he hit 176 at the Berlin Marathon half way. I guess they hit 20kph. He was obviously with a lower cadence than Adola who is a head higher. Adola must have been well above 180. I think it proves these things vary. Bekele has a very powerful stride, "similar" to Mo (but in many ways different). Adola looked like a leg shuffler in comparison.

one size for one runner wrote:

Cadence should be elastic. There is a lower limit for efficiency where running becomes bounding or plodding. For me that is around 160 (6'0", 150 lb) so easy runs are about 160-5. 10k+ race around 170, mile 180, 800 190+, full sprint at 220.

Those in the 180 all the time category only have one tool for pace change is more power. Those with elastic cadence have two ways. Count steps in Olympic 10k at 3 laps vs 25th and there will be a distinct difference. Increasing cadence is absolutely critical for kicking well.

This makes sense to me. At extremely slow paces, extremely high cadences are uneconomical. Conversely, at extremely fast paces, extremely low cadences are uneconomical. There may be a middle range where approximately the same cadence stays unchanged for some runners, but that window may be smaller, larger, or be non-existent depending on the runner. Intuitively, the ideal cadence for an elite runner as they change pace would adjust to create the most economical stride.

Maybe cyclists can shed some light on this with an analogy, as they change gears to go faster or slower to generate more or less power, but does the pedal revolution rate go up or down or keep most economical for the speed they are moving?

Elites are running 180 spm at paces way below 3:00 per km. You can't expect to run 180 for regular guys at way slower pace even if distance is same.

I am 182cm(5.11) with lot of power and speed. My cadences

Easy runs- below 160. No overstriding

10k around 170, 1500 185, 800 at 200.

Max speed sprints - around 250 at sub11s 100s

Yes, it's too low.

Increase it by speeding up the rate at which you take steps.

You shouldn't bounce, so yes, this is most likely causing your hip pain.

To run faster, you should be directing your efforts towards moving forwards; not up and down.