| Author |
Topic: Increasing Cadence |
Johnny J
Cool Runner |
 posted Apr-28-2006 10:26 AM
  
quote:
Originally posted by angrek:
This may be the wrong place to ask this but since you guys are talking about turnover and footstrikes... quick background: I've been back into running about a year after 16 years off. I used to be pretty fast but I was never on track or CC. (About 6 min avg combat boots) Anyway, fast forward to today. I'm up to 26 miles per week and I'm still feeling out my old form and strengths coming back here and there. I've developed asthma since then so a lot of my running is curtailed by that. I feel like I can go faster, maybe a lot faster if I could get more oxygen. I figure I'll get better with a bigger base. I'm also 5'11" and 204 lbs and need to strengthen up a little more to this weight, as I was 180 way back when. I'm aiming for a 7:30 pace for a 5K tommorrow as a minimum goal. When I train I'm very conscious of my form. Breathing, head, neck, back, arms, legs, feet...overall efficiency. I'm not a heel striker and I have a pretty naturally quick turnover. I counted it at 170 yesterday at a pretty easy pace. Anyway, more to the question. I haven't done any real speedwork the last year because I've been worried about the extra 20 lbs and injuries. (well..I have timed myself on a fast mile run every couple months but that's it....never done intervals in my life...) But I read something about tapering to a 5K and doing intervals leading up to it and nothing else with the day before off so I decided to give it a try. It said to do race pace but my legs were just there so I let it go to see what I could do and ran three quarter mile intervals in 1:14, 1:09 and 1:10. The thing that's bugging me is that I'm completely heel striking at this pace. It felt like a little of my form went out the window as well and I'd guess that my stride lengthened way out there, or it at least felt like it. It just felt like I was coming down abnormally hard and loud. Is this normal at that kind of pace? Is it my weight? Or is this something that will work itself out when I get used to the pace with some more intervals/speedwork/training and control my stride more? Sorry if this seems obvious, it's just been bugging the hell out of me the last couple days.
Probably multi-factorial. Biggest thing is probably your weight and relatively low mileage base. As you build a bigger mileage base your form will continue to naturally improve, even at speedier paces. As far as heel striking vs. mid-foot striking, I'm not entirely sure heel striking is less efficient IF you have a fast cadence. If you watch video of many elites, some are heel strikers, while many are midfoot strikers. However, as tigger mentioned, they have a fast transition and this is probably what minimizes any potential "braking", which it seems would be bound to occur with a slow cadence and pronounced heel strike. But with a faster cadence, some may be hitting on midfoot, while others are just touching the heel as it rolls by to transition to toe off quickly, probably just different mechanics, but likely equally efficient. I think obsessor mentioned "light and quick". If you think that, and try to run that way, you'll become more efficient. And tigger, I agree that most people will gravitate towards their own naturally most efficient stride just by running lots and lots of miles. However, I still think a faster cadence, consciously practiced with constant attention to form and being "light and quick" developed over time can and should be a part of that. It will feel wierd, unnatural, etc. for a couple months but eventually becomes second nature and I think more efficient to run at 180ish. But, the great thing about running, is it's an individual sport so people can experiment themselves and see what they think.
IP: Logged |
CanadaSam
Member |
posted Apr-28-2006 10:27 AM
Alright I think I'm buying into this 180 spm business. Now, as a relatively new (and SLOW) runner, I have a feeling that my current cadence is much, much lower than 180 (especially near the end of a run when I am nearly on my hands and knees.) I assume it's best to tackle this issue right away, before I get really stuck in my ways. Assuming I am far slower than 180, should I just get one of those 180 (or 90) bpm mp3 drum beats and force myself to adjust to 180, or should I bring myself up like 5 spm per week until I get there? Does anyone have a (long) list of songs that are 180bpm? I wouldn't mind avoiding military music and "techno dance mix" if possible. Do most people stay at 180 even up/down hills (and just adjust stride length?)
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 10:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by CanadaSam:
Alright I think I'm buying into this 180 spm business. Now, as a relatively new (and SLOW) runner, I have a feeling that my current cadence is much, much lower than 180 (especially near the end of a run when I am nearly on my hands and knees.) I assume it's best to tackle this issue right away, before I get really stuck in my ways. Assuming I am far slower than 180, should I just get one of those 180 (or 90) bpm mp3 drum beats and force myself to adjust to 180, or should I bring myself up like 5 spm per week until I get there? Does anyone have a (long) list of songs that are 180bpm? I wouldn't mind avoiding military music and "techno dance mix" if possible. Do most people stay at 180 even up/down hills (and just adjust stride length?)
1) How slow is slow? If your normal runs are like 12min/mile, I wouldn't expect to hit 180 though definitely 170 or better. 2) Your cadence, whatever it is, should not change on hills...shorten the stride to slow down (this applies to flat areas too). 3) Your short of air problems will get better as your fitness increases. Unless it's asthma kicking in, it is pretty difficult to really run short of oxygen into the lungs....the limiting factor is how quickly your blood gets it to your muscles, which get short and signal the brain to increase breathing. Running more will help this with time. 4) It it totally normal to feel awkward and run differently when you first start to do speedwork. When I get back to it after some time off, it feels very awkward. Your body will adjust, just focus on being smoother. Some runners tend to try and run fast by forcing their stride out, be careful not to do that as it forces cadence down.
IP: Logged |
indygreg
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 10:35 AM
The best recommendation is to increas only a couple of notches per week. Like go from 160 to 163 next week. then to 166 the week after that.That said, I was below 160 and I took myself to 180 in a month or less. It was my only focus. I ran no races, did not care about pace, did not care about total miles. I ran 5 days a week at a higher cadence and when it become too much to maintain, I stopped.
At the end of the month I could do 180 without much of an effort, but to say it was natural might be a bit off. I ran with metronome files every time. After 2 months, 180 was natural.
Now 3+ months later, I would have great difficulty even trying to run at 160. I have MP3 metronome files for free - www.runindy.com
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 11:30 AM
I read an article a while back about one of those guys who runs marathons barefoot -- road marathons, lots of them. If I can remember his name I'll find the URL and post it.He was asked how he could run road marathons without tearing up his feet. He said it was possible because the soles of his feet had toughened over time, but more important, he had developed a suitable running form. He described it as the lead foot making contact with the ground under the center of gravity, not stationary with respect to the body (as in walking), but rather moving aft in an almost "pawing" type of motion. So, if the body is moving forward at 10 mph, ideally the foot should be moving backward (with respect to the body) at 10 mph, so that the sole of the foot is motionless with respect to the ground at the moment of contact. I've never run barefoot on pavement, but I'd think that's the only way those guys could possibly run marathons without ripping the soles off their feet, no matter how thick & tough their feet are. Now if you picture that type of motion & footstrike, and how closely it corresponds to slow-motion videos of accomplished runners.. it looks like, and logically seems like it ought to be, a smooth and economical way of running. I can't imagine how that type of smooth motion could possibly occur with the heel striking the ground out in front of the body. The heel would be motionless with respect to the body -- moving forward with respect to the ground -- so when it contacts the ground there must be at least *some* braking efffect. The only way to achieve that smooth footstrike is if the foot contacts the ground directly beneath the center of gravity - a midfoot or forefoot landing. Ozzie Gontang and others make much the same point.
IP: Logged |
runbike44ls
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 11:42 AM
Interesting topic. Love it. I ran quite a bit in my younger years. Within the last year I have started running again. about 2 months ago, I began to read about 180 as the cadence as well as foot fall in that heel vs. ball or mid-foot. I was leary at first to change but looked at what I was doing and thought hard about the changes that needed to be made. I was a heel first runner. Had been taught that at an early age. I am now a comformist and am a mid foot striker. My cadence is nearing 180 I hope. I have more energy running this way. less pain in my feet and knees. My stride is much shorter and the whole change seems to be natural. Am I faster, at times I am. I think this relates to my cadence and lack of miles. More miles, better cadence, faster times. When I initally made the change, my calves hurt but not as bad as one would think. thanks for allowing me to jump in with an account of changing. He who stops being better stops being good- Oliver Cromwell ------------------
IP: Logged |
runnerparris
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 11:48 AM
I posted earlier in the midst of the heated debate and think maybe I got overlooked, so I'm trying again.I never knew that cadence was an issue. However, I seem to naturally have a quick cadence. I noticed my legs move faster than most people I run with, but I always just figured it was because my legs were shorter. If your cadence is over 180 does that mean that your stride is too short? Should you try and slow it down and lengthen your stride at some point? ------------------
My Profile
IP: Logged |
briandirect
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 12:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
If your foot lands in front of you and bears ZERO weight, then no, you won't be braking. But if it is bearing any weight at all, that translates into tension in your leg ((which is at an angle to your body) which must have a horizontal (ie braking) component.
This sounds like a misconception. The body is moving forwards. There will always be braking if the foot is not moving back fast enough no matter where it makes contact with the ground relative to the CG. This is nothing to do with the position of the CG. Its a simple resolution of horizontal change of momentum. If the foot takes weight when its forward of the CG there will be an additional couple pitching the body backwards. That is, if you had a roller skate on your foot you would fall on your butt. This pitching force can be countered in two ways (a) applying braking (now we are getting to the braking) which would tend to pitch you nose first into the road, or (b) apply a driving force backwards, (pawback) to the same effect. I am saying that heel strikers would have to apply more pawback than mid-foot strikers to avoid more than minimal breaking. What is practical in reality, I have no idea. I just doubt that landing in front of the CG or heel striking is an automatic indicator of inefficiency.
Comparisons to animals, with completely different running forms, is meaningless. Animals stretch their front legs out and pull forward with their whole body. Some people have tried to say that humans can pull back with their front leg, but I have yet to be able to duplicate it myself so I doubt it is a real component of human running (hammys would be a lot bigger if this were true).
.[/QUOTE]
Aren't the butt muscles also involved in rotating the leg backwards? In some people these are rather large. [This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Apr-28-2006).]
IP: Logged |
obsessor
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 12:28 PM
-good thread-It took me about a month to get my cadence up, early on when I started running about 4 years ago. It was all I thought about. (I hardly knew there were races at the time, except big city marathons, I just ran and improved for the personal satisfaction of it.) I did it by monitoring my breathing - targeting the easiest effort at a given pace over flat ground. Whala. 180 spm, + or - about 2spm. My point is: try it and see - there's your proof. the 180spm is one thing. Seperately, there is the heel-mid-fore issue that is always kicked about. And where you plant your foot. If you land with your foot in front of your Cg, you are pushing yourself up and back. I'm pretty sure of that. If there is a scuffing sound as you land or if your foot slips forward in the least - you KNOW you are not performing optimally. Now, in photos, it looks like I land on my heel. And it looks like I am going to land with the foot well ahead of my Cg. But there is simply no wear on the heel of any of my race-flats. My stride is very low, and the foot more or less skims the surface, but plants down directly under my body, kind of rolling from the outside very slightly, then planting on the ball of the foot and the toes. As a very close observer pointed out (sportigirl?), and I think it's true, I think that the foot might rock back or flex ever so slightly at this point, and make the heel touch barely, as the Cg floats past the toe of the planted foot, and the calf is contracted as the achilles tendon then gets "spring loaded" from your weight. Then a very rapid toe-off propels you upward and forward. Even with very good runners, in photos, (like Alberto Salazar, for instance) it looks like many are landing square on their heels, but I think they are not planting until the foot is under the body. It's a near-zero force. At this point, It's an academic discussion that I've lost the taste for. My message is to experiment, and see for yourself.
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 12:53 PM
Briandirect,
You are correct on several points. I think to clear up, it depends exactly how you define "heel strike". In my mind, this means that the heel lands in front of the CG and bears weight. If you lightly touch the ball of the heel and immediately roll forward so weight is not really applied until midfoot, I would say this is not a heel strike. Basically, I define the landing as the point where weight is transferred to the ground. As your astute roller skate analogy implies, if the heel does in fact bear weight before getting under the CG some braking (force transfer to the ground in front of the CG) must occur. Your comment about pawback seems logical as well. I'm not a big believer in the efficiency of pawback in front of the CG. In order to apply forward force to the body, the forward foot would have to bear weight to lever the body forward...unless the pawback velocity was perfectly matched to the body's forward velocity, braking would result. Also, since thhe CG is falling somewhat closer to the ground during this period of the stride I can't see how the pawback can apply forward velocity. However, if the pawback is a transitory motion and weight isn't applied until the rearward-moving foot is under the CG, the appearance of the stride would be approximately the same yet it would really be a midfoot landing and efficient. Yes, I agree butt muscles are involved. As to the size of various people's posteriors, I will reserve comment 
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 01:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by runnerparris:
I posted earlier in the midst of the heated debate and think maybe I got overlooked, so I'm trying again.I never knew that cadence was an issue. However, I seem to naturally have a quick cadence. I noticed my legs move faster than most people I run with, but I always just figured it was because my legs were shorter. If your cadence is over 180 does that mean that your stride is too short? Should you try and slow it down and lengthen your stride at some point?
I apologize, Runnerparis (and Steve36 too), I guess the discussion of running form must seem off topic. This is a particularly interesting thread for me because I've been working on improving my form in recent months. What I've found -- and I'd love to know if others have the same experience -- is that turnover & form are closely linked. My goal was to change from a slower, "heavier," heel-striking style to a quicker, lighter, more fluid mid-foot style. I started out trying to change the foot strike while leaving cadence unchanged. It didn't work -- no matter how much I practiced, with the long slow stride, my lead foot would always revert to striking heel-first. A friend suggested I forget about footstrike for a while and concentrate instead on improving turnover. So I got an electronic metronome, found that my cadence was about 168, and set about gradually increasing it. I bumped it no more than 2 beats at a time allowing several weeks between increments. As my turnover improved I found my stride automatically shortened with no conscious effort. It makes sense, I guess... same pace but more steps = shorter strides. But the stride length was reduced only out front; my foot was reaching forward less. The "back half" of the stride (trailing leg) was about the same. At 180 steps per minute my foot touches down directly beneath my body. I haven't videotaped myself, but the footstrike feels like it's mid-foot. I actually have to concentrate to extend my foot out in front and land on the heel. Since getting the cadence up to 180 a couple months ago, I've been working on other improvements in form; not yet as smooth and relaxed as I want to be, but making progress.
IP: Logged |
Steve36
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 01:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fuzz:
I apologize, Runnerparis (and Steve36 too), I guess the discussion of running form must seem off topic.
Not at all. Very good and interesting information.
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 02:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CanadaSam:
Do most people stay at 180 even up/down hills (and just adjust stride length?)
That's what Dreyer advises in Chirunning. The book talks about "shifting gears" -- shortening stride on uphills & letting it stretch out on downhills. Still working on this myself -- it's hard to stay relaxed, esp. on downhills -- but it does feel more efficient than trying to power up hills.
IP: Logged |
angrek
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 02:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
3) Your short of air problems will get better as your fitness increases. Unless it's asthma kicking in, it is pretty difficult to really run short of oxygen into the lungs....the limiting factor is how quickly your blood gets it to your muscles, which get short and signal the brain to increase breathing. Running more will help this with time.
I assume you were replying to me. Yes, it is asthma kicking in. I take medications and I've noticed paces getting easier as my base is building up, but it'll still hit me if I'm running hard. I just literally can't take in air. I usually try hard to keep my breathing 4/4*, then to 3/3 even when my pace is starting to get up there. Most times when I move to 2/2 it's only a short time before I start going downhill. If I'm going hard and have to move to 1/2 and then I'm pretty much done. Slow 10 miles? No problems. It's getting better...just veeery sloooowly.  *I figure that if my airway is inflammed by the intake when working hard, then I'll modify my breathing to intake fewer times when working hard. Even my first two quarter mile sprints where 3/4 to 3/3. Had to move to 2/2 for the last one because I couldn't hold it any longer. ------------------
Mah Profile
IP: Logged |
Mike Behnke
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 02:35 PM
I've been working on a faster turnover as well and their is one thing I can't seem to escape: When I run with a quicker cadence my heart rate goes up even though I'm slightly shortening my stride to run at the same pace per mile. Anyone else experience this? It seems if I just slightly slow my cadence from this forced fast turnover I seem to hit my sweetspot. Also while running on an indoor track at a university this winter I saw a guy who was running mile after mile effortlessly at what must have been a 7:00 pace. He was blowing by me who was trying to run at a quick turnover with short choppy steps at a 9:30 pace. His heels were hitting his butt while mine seem to barely get off the ground maybe a foot! He was definatel a mid-to-forefoot striker. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe it really is an individual thing and that there can be good/great runners with different techniques. I also see a girl every Sunday who runs Boston every year who has a lightening quick cadence with her legs moving back and forth very fast and her feet barely raising above the ground and she looks just as fast as the guy I described above.
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2006 03:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Behnke:
I've been working on a faster turnover as well and their is one thing I can't seem to escape: When I run with a quicker cadence my heart rate goes up even though I'm slightly shortening my stride to run at the same pace per mile. Anyone else experience this?
I had a similar experience; after each bump in cadence it took a week or two for the HR to settle. The effect was more pronounced when I tried to bump the cadence 4 steps at once. I figured it had to do with efficiency -- greater effort at the same pace initially, then the body adjusted to the higher turnover. I betcha 7:00-Butt-Kicking Guy and Quick-Boston-Feet Lady both are within 5 steps per minute of 180.
IP: Logged |
d3finition
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2006 12:04 AM
is this 180 spm cadance an ideal?? i mean im pretty short like 159cm tall male.
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2006 12:55 AM
I'm really trying to get this to see if it's important or not to my running. Just for kicks, I counted my steps when running an 10:45ish pace, and counted 165. At 9:45, I was counting 175. Seems to me the faster I run, the more steps per minute I'm going to make. If I go over the magic 180, then I have to elongate my stride in order to cover more ground in less steps in the same amount of time. If I'm under the 180, I have to take smaller steps to cover less ground, but move my legs faster. Is that how this works?If so, what's the benefit? Why the magic 180? I thought stride length came from development of strength, and that someone like me ( a new runner) shouldn't force a longer stride. This is all new to me. I've been on these boards for a few years and have never read anything about this. I think it's a conspiracy (everyone's in on it) to mess with my mind and my running. Now you got me counting steps. --Jimmy My Running World
Current Training
IP: Logged |
yanelh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2006 02:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by runnerparris:
I posted earlier in the midst of the heated debate and think maybe I got overlooked, so I'm trying again.I never knew that cadence was an issue. However, I seem to naturally have a quick cadence. I noticed my legs move faster than most people I run with, but I always just figured it was because my legs were shorter. If your cadence is over 180 does that mean that your stride is too short? Should you try and slow it down and lengthen your stride at some point?
I think nobody is answering your question because everyone else here is concerned with moving UP to 180 instead of DOWN to it. I'd say that if what you're doing is working for you why mess with it? If you must tinker, give it a try by shifting a few BPM a week and see if your time improves or gets worse. BTW, at my 16-18 min mile jogging pace I'm most comfortable at about 145 BPM... So I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum. I tried changing to a mid-strike shorter stride a few months ago, for about 2 weeks, and had nothing but foot and ankle problems. I went back to my natural heel-strike motion and the problems went away. ::shrug:: Maybe I'll tinker with it again next year. For now, I've got other things to work on.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2006 09:00 AM
Natural stride length varies depending on pace. The faster you go the longer your stride will be. From what I understand most runners tend over time (years) towards their natural stride length for a given pace. Beginners and less experienced runners generally overstride, and this is usually due to running at a low turnover frequency.As you run your lead foot will be landing just in front of your center of gravity. This means that regardless of how your foot lands you will experience brake loading. The farther forward of your c of g that your foot lands the greater the brake loading. Not only is this inefficient and a waste of energy, it also adds greatly to the shock load on your leg. Repetition of this over time can lead to injury. If your turnover frequency is low your stride length will be longer in order to maintain the same pace. This suggests running at a low turnover frequency is synonomous with overstriding. Daniels did a study some years ago on elite runners and it determined these runners consistently ran at a turnover rate of around 180 per minute. There was another study done on elites (mentioned in "Run Strong" - Kevin Beck) that said elites ran around 190. It appears there is a range of stride frequency for optimal running. How large this range may be is open to interpretation but I've never heard of the optimal being less than 180. What's clear is that running within this range will minimize wasted energy while also minimizing shock loading on your legs. Running slower turnover suggests overstriding and running faster suggests understriding. I'm not sure whether faster turnover has any negative energy consequences (Your foot would be landing very close to your c of g) but it would certainly have speed consequences because the way to increase speed is to increase stride length.
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2006 09:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Natural stride length varies depending on pace. The faster you go the longer your stride will be. From what I understand most runners tend over time (years) towards their natural stride length for a given pace. Beginners and less experienced runners generally overstride, and this is usually due to running at a low turnover frequency.As you run your lead foot will be landing just in front of your center of gravity. This means that regardless of how your foot lands you will experience brake loading. The farther forward of your c of g that your foot lands the greater the brake loading. Not only is this inefficient and a waste of energy, it also adds greatly to the shock load on your leg. Repetition of this over time can lead to injury. If your turnover frequency is low your stride length will be longer in order to maintain the same pace. This suggests running at a low turnover frequency is synonomous with overstriding. Daniels did a study some years ago on elite runners and it determined these runners consistently ran at a turnover rate of around 180 per minute. There was another study done on elites (mentioned in "Run Strong" - Kevin Beck) that said elites ran around 190. It appears there is a range of stride frequency for optimal running. How large this range may be is open to interpretation but I've never heard of the optimal being less than 180. What's clear is that running within this range will minimize wasted energy while also minimizing shock loading on your legs. Running slower turnover suggests overstriding and running faster suggests understriding. I'm not sure whether faster turnover has any negative energy consequences (Your foot would be landing very close to your c of g) but it would certainly have speed consequences because the way to increase speed is to increase stride length.
What I don't understand is at what speed are we talking about? Do these elite runners always run at 180 whether they are running 4:40 or at a 6:00 jog?
Thanks.
--Jimmy My Running World
Current Training
IP: Logged |
Ewart Harris
Member |
posted Apr-29-2006 09:48 AM
Could some one tell me what is the best running form, should I be bending my knees a lot or pulling back my legs to my butt. I am trying to attain this 180 spm, on my first two efforts a six and a four milers my speed has increased with very little effort and the shorter stride length is much less stressful on my body. I am impressed with this method. However, I am still way below 180 spm. (Currently at about 160spm) Could some one tell me what motion the rest of my legs and body should take.------------------
MyRunningLog [This message has been edited by Ewart Harris (edited Apr-29-2006).]
IP: Logged |
SportiGrl
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2006 10:25 AM
this thread is morphing to a lot of things other than cadence! LOL ... footstrike, leg form (shuffle or butt kick) ...
RunnerParis ... I'm like you, except I have fairly long legs (33" inseam) ... my cadence is about 186-192; at 31-32 per 10 seconds ... I am not trying to slow it down, it feels 'right' ...
... whoever asked about going slow or fast and its effects on cadence ... it doesn't effect mine measurably ... I check it frequently on LRs and also tempo-type runs and it's the same even when the pace is faster ... I've read that the faster you go the longer the stride becomes because you exert more force with each step within your 'natural' (learned) cadence ...
I do consciously try to keep my cadence high when I notice I am slowing down and my mind tells me to work harder ... I have changed my word from 'harder' to 'quicker' ... it helps me remember quick and light gets better results than long and hard ... I finish my runs much less fatigued, mentally and physically since I started doing this a few months ago (after reading about cadence)
I KNOW, for a fact, that in shoes and barefoot my heel touches ground when I run at any pace ... but since my cadence is so high it can't be much of a brake ... I do believe I strike mid-foot, flex/roll back to heel very slightly to 'load the spring' (as obsessor put it) and then propel foreward through rolling from outer heel to inner toe-off ... I am low-arch and have always pronated a bit ...
I am a shuffler, I believe, much moreso than a butt-kicker ... butt-kicking in a LR or distance of more than 400-800 doesn't feel natural to me and requires a lot of effort .... I do see some that run entire distance races with that form and it amazes me ... I've read that the thinking behind the butt-kick style is to shorten the lever on the kickback to decrease air-resistance as you move foreward ... then quickly swing bent leg through, fairly high (less resistance) before push-off phase ... makes sense ... I can't sustain that (yet???- to be determined - someday) ... the shuffle camp is also filled with awesome runners and the thinking is that it is more energy efficient ... but I agree that both camps, at the fast end of the spectrum, have a high foot-turnover (cadence) ...
just my random thoughts ... great discussion topic!
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2006 10:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
What I don't understand is at what speed are we talking about? Do these elite runners always run at 180 whether they are running 4:40 or at a 6:00 jog?
Thanks.
--Jimmy My Running World
Current Training
The answer to your question is "yes." However there is a tendency to have a faster turnover at faster pace. (My turnover at 5k race pace is around 180 but at easy pace it's about 170.) I think obsessor mentioned a few posts ago that the key is to run light and easy. Try to put your foot down as lightly as possible. That will help improve turnover if you are currently less than 180.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2006 10:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Ewart Harris:
Could some one tell me what is the best running form, should I be bending my knees a lot or pulling back my legs to my butt. I am trying to attain this 180 spm, on my first two efforts a six and a four milers my speed has increased with very little effort and the shorter stride length is much less stressful on my body. I am impressed with this method. However, I am still way below 180 spm. (Currently at about 160spm) Could some one tell me what motion the rest of my legs and body should take.
After your leg pushes off you should bend your knee to bring your leg back for the next landing. The reason for this is the pendulum effect. If your foot is closer to your body it will require less effort and less time to move it. If your leg is fully extended you will not be able to rotate it back to the landing position as quickly and it will take more energy to do so. The pendulum effect is also noticeable with heavier shoes. This is why good runners use racing flats rather than trainers for races. Us mortals normally don't worry about this because it's not a high priority in terms of where we can improve. Simply running more miles will give more benefit than lighter shoes if you're not yet running 50 mpw. Besides, well cushioned trainers go a long way to preventing injury. I run in Saucony Triumph shoes, which are the heaviest I've ever worn, but are also the bast cushioned I've ever found. I accept the loss due to extra weight because at my weight (200 plus lbs) I figure I need extra cushion to help protect my architecture.
IP: Logged |
 |
