Running to music.... (Page 4)

OK, I'll buy that.  This speaks to my second question -- would you say that someone who did train a 'decent amount' (let's say 50miles/week average for 20 weeks) would, during that time self-select an efficient/economical gait?  And then I'll re-ask my first question:  is this a hunch, or do we have evidence?  (Again, not being confrontational here -- just curious.  Is there a special font for 'I really am honestly just asking this question'?  )

It depends on what you mean by the training. I know a lot of people that want to run a marathon, or whatever, that just go out and run. They never do strides, tempo work, hills, fartlek runs, etc etc. They start at one pace, go 45 minutes to a couple hours and they are done.

Those people will never really change their gait. It will remain at whatever they do, whether it's bounding, shuffling or handsprings.

The ones that go out and do the strides, high knee drills, run hills and trails, think about their body position, do intervals, fartleks, etc. are the ones whose bodies decide "If we're gonna do this we have to do X and Y".

It's the difference between exercising and training, and the reason that a lot of BOP athletes will never be more than BOP.

John 

This thread about music has been very interesting.

 Anyway, I was just wondering how "racing" cadence compares to "training" cadence ... are they one in the same?  It would seem to me that my cadence goes up considerably while racing over when I'm just out for a regular training run or l.s.d.   This has to do a lot with simply going faster... you'll naturally want to turnover your legs more to go faster since your stride length remains the same.   Should I make some effort to up my training cadence to match my race cadence?   This will mean that for training I will have to shorten my stride.. while in racing that stride will lengthen.  This seems very troublesome to me, but would like some clarification.

I used to run to music, but I don't anymore.  I get a lot more out of my runs by listening to my footfalls and breathing.  Now, if I run indoors at a gym, I ALWAYS listen to music, because the piped music is usually some lame crap I don't want to listen to.

As far as the technique conversations, I utilize some of my old football training...make sure I don't cross the centerline of the body and position my fingers like I'm holding  a penny betwen my index finger and thumb...I guess that was taught to reduce tension.  the two things I always have to get out of my mind is the overstride which works great for sprinting but not long distance and getting Army cadences out of my head, as they tend to make me run a slower cadence than is optimal.  I just wish I could get back to Army speed.    Is it weird to notice when I am running versus jogging I can hear the wind blowing over my ears?  When the wind is silent I KNOW I'm running too slow. 

Except when it is at your back.  I LOVE the sensation of running the same speed as the wind at my back.  No wind in ears at all, and yet moving forward...

Your cadence should be pretty constant, regardless of pace.

OK, I pulled out my Daniel's Running Formula book to see what he says about turnover.  Here is a direct quote from his 2nd addition, page 93:

"One of the first things I teach new runners is some basics about running cadence, or stride rate.  Almost all elite distance runners (both men and women) tend to stride at about the same rate: 180 or more steps per minute.  This means that they're taking 90 or more steps with each foot each minute, a rate that doesnt vary much even whn they're not running fast.   The main change that occurs as runners go faster is in stride length; the faster they go, the longer the stride becomes, with little change in rate of leg turnover.

The stride rate many beginning runners take is quite different from that of elite runners.  When I have new runners count their own stride rates, I find that very few (sometimes none out of a class of 25 or 30) take as many as 180 steps per minute.  In fact, some turn over as slowly as 160 times per minute.  The main disadvantage of this slower turnover is that the slower you take steps, the longer you spend in the air, and the longer you're in the air, the higher you displace your body mass and the harder you hit the ground on landing.  When you consider that many running injuries are the result of landing shock, it's not surprising that experienced runners tend to turn over faster than beginning runners do.

Several studies have been conducted on the energy demands of different stride frequencies, and it turns out that experienced runners are most efficient at their chosen rate of turnover; longer or shorter strides (which mean slower or faster stride rates) result in graeter energy demands.  However, when working with less-experienced runners, running economy can often be improved by converting slow-turnover runners into runners who use a faster rate.

.....We often talk about getting into a good running rhythm, and the one you want to get into is one that involves 180 or more steps per minute. 

If you count your own stride rate and find it's considerably slower than what I'm suggesting, try to work on a shorter, lighter stride.  Imagine that you're running over a field of raw eggs and you don't want to break any of them - run over the ground, not into it.  Try to get the feeling that your legs are part of a wheel that just rolls along, not two pogo sticks that bounce along.

If you feel that you need practice improving your stride rate, focus on this during easy runs.  Rate usually goes up for slower-turnover people when that race shorter distances, so you many not need to think about it during faster quality training.  when practicing turning over faster on easy training runs, don't let the fact that you're taking quicker steps force you to run faster.  Try to run at your normal training speed, but do it with shorter, quicker stride rate.  With practice, you'll find it becomes quite natural and comfortable."

So I believe this answers the question of whether we should be trying to hit at least 90 cadence.  The answer is yes.  And I do use music to act like a metronome to help me learn this faster turnover.

No, the answer according to Daniels is "yes."  The answer is not a definitive yes.

And considering I tend to reference Daniels and Pfitzinger-Douglas as my primary sources most of the time, it is not like I don't listen to them.  I just don't agree with such a thing as "ideal cadence" just like I don't for riding.  There is no such thing as the perfect cadence - as body type, running biomechanics and speed have a lot more to do with cadence than some arbitrary number.

I'm in no position to agree or disagree with you on this -- I'm learning a lot though -- but in fairness to Daniels, he says '180 or more'.  This is also a point he emphasized in in the thread that Scout7 linked to earlier.  So he isn't saying that there is an ideal cadence, but only that one ought to strive for 180 or greater (perhaps much as many people say something along the lines of 85 - 100 or greater on the bike without claiming that there is an ideal cadence -- again, I'm not endorsing that recommendation, only pointing out that many people make it).

I think one should also acknowledge that the number isn't 'arbitrary'.  The claim is that it arises from careful study of successful runners.

ETA:  None of the above is to say that Daniels is right or wrong.  I have no idea.

Right, a study of elite distance runners (distance runner is classified as anything over 800 meters by the way).

We're talking people who at the SLOWEST in races are running 5 minute miles ............. and most are faster.

I've been over this subject before, here is a rehash.

For someone running 5 minute miles, say they run 180 SPM, over the 5 minute mile they have taken 900 strides at an average of 5.86 feet per stride.  Yes, that is correct, each of their strides is close to 6 feet ............

Now, take Joe/Jane average runner who does 9's.  Force 180+ on them ........ they have run 1,620 steps in a mile at an average of 3.25 feet per stride.

Per mile, not only are the faster people going further in each stride, but they are taking almost HALF the steps that the "normal" runner is taking.

So let's think of this.  We want to take a slower run and increase their impact per mile by close to double what the elites do???  Hello injuries ........ because I can guarantee that the slower runner's economy of motion sucks big time compared to those same elites.

Studies have shown "On Average" that the top distance runners are close to 180 ideally.  That means some are more, some are less.  But they also have gotten that way from years and years and thousands upon thousands of miles.  Not by forcing themselves to run that cadence early on in their career.  Yes, they have a faster turnover, but they are also going a hell of a lot further and faster than the average person when they run.

I like Daniels a lot, but the premise that "this is what the elites do, so it must be right" is utter bullsh-t.  The reason the elites are like that is because that is what their body has adapted to to be the most efficient, NOT because they train to run a certain cadence.  You cannot "force" running economy of motion.  It takes the miles and the muscular adaptations of years to get there.

Thanks for your helpful thoughts.  I'm relatively new to all of this -- sorry to prompt a rehash.

No worries, I realized after the fact (on my drive home from the office - had to work this weekend for a project due Monday) that I had gone over this on Slowtwitch more in depth, not here.