Cadence question - cycling and running

i'm not gonna really touch on the pedaling part of the question.  i'll just say that for a given speed, its usually more efficient to spin faster in a lower gear than it is to go the same speed in a bigger gear and lower rpm (cadence). 

as you start to run, you've been pedalling at 90 so now when you run your feet will be travelling the same speed.  yes, do not concern yourself with stride length at this point.  you should be running at about 90 no matter what speed you are going.  it may feel like baby steps but thas ok.  there is no ideal stride length.  as your fitness improves and you get stronger your strides will get longer.  cadence will maintain constant.  it is much more economical to have a high running cadence. 

There is no right cadence for everyone.  The 90 is an average cadence observed by Dr. Daniels.  Note the word "average"; some had lower, some had higher. 

Here's the simplest answer to your question: run lots.  Yes, it seems trite, but it is the truth.  You will increase your stride length and cadence naturally based on what is most efficient for your body.  The problem with trying to match to some random number is that it may not be the most efficient for you.  Should you work on increasing turnover?  Of course.  But don't try to match someone else's.  There is a proper way to do so.  Running uphill can increase stride length.  Running downhill can increase turnover.  You can do strides as well.  If you are new to running, however, you are better off worrying much more about your consistency and frequency than your cadence.  It will come with time.

Run whatever feels comfortable and natural. 

When pedaling we use two systems muscular endurance and aerobic. Low cadence is better for one and high cadence is better for the other. Finding the sweet spot for you is the key. When I do high cadence work ie 105+ my HR is higher at same watt output than if I do my normal cadence and low cadence my HR is even lower.

I started riding back in '04 with low cadence probably in the 70's as that is how I rode as a kid. After working on different drills, training with a coach, I have found my sweet spot is 97-98 on the bike. If I do hard efforts intense efforts like time trials I can go 2-3 higher.

Interesting I just for kicks recently counted my turn over running and it was 96. I found it interesting that they were exactly the same. I think my body has figured out what works best for me.

Back when I was working on changing my running I think my turn over was in the low 80s. Two years ago I worked on landing more midfoot instead of heal striker and in time naturally my run cadence changed with that. 

In time your natural spot will become apparent. 

As tag said, 90 cycles per minute is ideal for running. Watch any elite runner, and no matter if they're just jogging slowly or running race-pace, that's the cadence they are running at. Biomechanically, speaking, it's the most efficient place to be. Ideally, your foot should strike just under your knee, and that cadence allows you to do that.

As you slow you're running cadence down, you increase the distance your foot hits the ground in fron of your knee. And when you start doing that, you initiate braking forces that ruins your running economy. It also transmits a lot of force to your knees and hips, increasing the likelyhood of injury.

Regarding stride length, refer to the following formula:

Speed = cadence x stride length

If you want to go faster, you have to increase your stride length while keeping your cadence at least constant. Increasing your candence doesn't mean running faster.

What?

There are a number of elite runners who don't run at a 90 cadence.  Additionally, slowing your cadence does not necessarily equate to overstriding, which is what you are describing.

So I was taught that by both Jack Daniels and Dave Scott. I'd love to see someone with a slow cadence who doesn't overstride--if you can find some video, I'd love to see it. I'm not saying it's not impossible, but, biomechanically, I just don't see how it's possible.

There is going to be some level of variation in your cadence depending on how hard/fast you are running.  Go out for an easy jog, and see what happens.  Define "slow cadence".

Daniels stated that elite runners have an average cadence of 90.  He mentioned this because he felt that a higher turnover reduced the shock of landing, thus reducing chance of injury.  There is no magic number.  90 works for some, but not others.

It's all about economy... there nay be runners who do very well overstriding, but physics says they aren't as efficient as they could be.

Not everyone runs at 90.  Not everyone overstrides.  That's my point.  Just because you don't run at 90 spm does not mean you are overstriding.  Additionally, you can run at 90 spm and still be overstriding.  One does not necessarily beget the other.

And if people took the time to read what I post, you would see that I have no problem with improving stride rate.  I'm all for it, I can even suggest ways to do so.  What I think is wrong is the idea that there is a one size fits all mentality when it comes to this sort of thing.  Not everyone is efficient or economical at 90 spm.  However, considering the majority of runners are already within 10% of 90, it means that there are other, more important factors to consider.  Regarding the OP's question, I think he/she is better off not worrying about 90 spm, and will be better served by running more. 

I agree with Scout in the sense that there is not such a thing as optimal cadence. What Daniels studied showed in general that many elite runners will indeed exhibit a cadence around 90 steps per leg or 180 steps per minute but this will  vary and there are documented cases of elite marathoners with a cadence as low as 80 or high as 100. This idea that the ‘optimal’ cadence is 90 is been spread around and become popular knowledge that’s all. But since we listen this over and over through different venues is normal to assume it is a fact.

Actually I could tell you that there is literature and studies showing how most elite marathoners exhibit a heel striking gait yet I am sure many around believe the ‘optimal’ way to run is via mid-foot to fore-foot striking and will think I am lying, although I am not. (But that’s irrelevant for the OP)

Anyway, there is seems to be a correlation between speed and cadence, hence since most elite runners usually run the fastest it is normal for them to exhibit faster cadences. For an avg MOP running 10 min/miles striving for a 90 cadence might seem unnatural and uncomfortable. For this athletes is better to make the focus on running more so they can grow fitter and faster and keep a cadence around 80 (only higher if the can) as they run more and pace increases, cadence most likely will increase as well.

In terms of cycling we have the same dilemma; the popular knowledge suggests that the optimal cadence is around 90. Later a higher cadence becomes more popular thanks to the study performed on Lance A. but again what it is often misunderstood is that cadence is a function of power and LA was able to spin at a fast cadence because he was also generating a considerable amount of power.

The fact is that specific studies about ‘optimal’ cadence determined it was around 80 rpm (http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/default.asp?pg=fullstory&id=2880) but it seems between 80-100rpm the energy requirements are around the same. The main reason is been suggest to keep a cadence of 180 for running and 90 for running for triathlons it is because it seems it can make the transition from biking to running easier. as long as your cycling cadence matches your running cadence whatever it is the transition should feel comfortable.

For the OP - I would advice to experiment in the 80-100 range for both B/R and go with whatever feels comfortable for you and as you become fitter see if there are any changes or if increasing your cadence makes you feel more comfortable or faster.

Yes, quite helpful. 

Sarcasm is lost on the interweb quite often Tim ........

It is better to spin faster in my worthless opinion.  You will be using an "easier" gear and in my experience this allows you to maintain your speed in a much better fashon then someone grinding away at 70 or 80.  Try to accellerate quickly when you are doing that.  It just ain't gonna happen.  Then try to accellerate while spin a higher cadence and easier gear.  Much easier to do and you don't feel like you are fighting the bike.

I've always been a "spinner" even well before LA made it popular.  It is just what feels natural and is where I have gotten the best results.  Yes, climbing my cadence will go down some, but not much, and that is also a function of what gear I decide to climb in.  One of the most telling things from my races last year was passing people grinding away the hills in their 53 x 21 in my oly. race while I spun by them in my 39 x 23 (about 5 mph faster than them).  All because they wanted to "power" the hill???  Why???

As for coming off the bike and running?  Your legs are tired, your body is not used to running after "X" time of riding.  The whole idea that your legs will be turning over at the same rate as they were on the bike is bogus in my opinion.  You will be running whatever feels comfortable, not what you were pedaling.  I can absolutely guarantee I'm not turning over 100 - 105 spm when I get off the bike and start running and that is what I ride at.

Just an opinion, take it as that and nothing else.  But I'm firmly in the Scout and amiine camp on this one.  There is no ideal-must-do turnover.  There is a range where you often see pros, but I can say that they did not sit there and force their bodies to do that rate, it was something they developed over years and thousands of miles of running.

You want turnover and stride length of the pros???  Do as Scout said and run lots .... and I mean lots ....... 1,500+ miles a year ...... for 5 to 10 years .......... then you will have the same sort of stride and running economy that the pros do.  Because that's how they developed it.  Once again we're back to the "no way to get fast quick" argument.  The thing people (especially novice athletes) always seem to forget, the pros are the way they are becuase they've been doing this for YEARS upon years.  It doesn't happen overnight.

There was some video of Faris at IMH a couple years ago in the mid-70s range (76 actually, IIRC).  Well under 9:00 pace and no over-striding.  Maybe not the form for everyone to shoot for (and perhaps he could do even better with a faster turnover), but does work for some people and is not an immediate sign of overstriding.

That said, I think most people with lower cadences do suffer from overstriding and could do well to focus on lifting turnover (however they choose to approach it).