My experiences with stride rate (running cadence) (Page 2)

I'm a very high cadence cyclist, always have been.

And I don't think there is anything specifically wrong with having a high running cadence.  But what I do have opinions on is that someone specifically tried to alter something that doesn't necessarily have a causitive affect on performance or injury prevention.

It is just the whole ludicrous "mid-strike" argument.  The point is not WHERE you land on your foot, it is where your foot LANDS in relation to your body line.  You could be a heel striker, a mid foot striker or a ball foot striker and still have the same sort of results, as long as you are landing with your foot underneath you and not out in front of your body line.

Same thing for cadence, and cycling is a great example of that.  You've got LA who is a high spinner and then you have Ullrich who was a gear masher.  Both just as fast, both just as strong ...... but completely different cadence styles.

I agree with Rick on this completely.

There are ways to improve your cadence. And improving it is perfectly acceptable. However, I completely disagree with the idea of using a metronome or some other device to do so. If you want to improve your cadence, the answer is very, very simple: run more.

One of the best ways to improve turnover is to run downhill. By running on a very gradual downhill, you can force your legs to work faster naturally. By doing this, you develop a natural cadence that works best for YOU, not some artificial number.

The biggest issue I have with using some artificial device is that you don't know what your natural, most efficient stride rate is. So picking an arbitrary number out of thin air is pointless at best, counterproductive at worst.

If you want to work on your mechanics, which is a laudable goal, then do it in a fashion that works with what you've got. Do drills, run striders, run up and down hills. All those things will help. Using a metronome is questionable.

MTA: Cadence is only part of the equation for speed.  Considering most people are within 10% of what the elites run (and there's great variance among them as well), a bigger determinant is force applied to the ground. 

If you read my post I did not mention anything about altering foot strike, however I completely disagree with both of you about cadence work. If you look at most elite runners today they have a cadence of 180 or above, there has to be some correlation between that and running faster. I had the amazing opportuntity to work with Bobby McGee at the Level II clinic last month, guess what he was an advocate of? You guessed it, cadence work. Cadence is not the be all and end all by any means, however it is one part of increasing your efficiency as a runner.

And what was his suggested method(s) for working on cadence?

See my above post. 

The original argument is not whether or not working on cadence is worthwhile.  The argument was about how changing cadence could be the SOLE contributor to someone's increased pace.

Both Rick and I argue that you cannot make the simple link between cadence and pace.  As I stated earlier, the body is a complex system, with many points of leverage.  You cannot make a simple reductionist argument that states A causes B, without looking at the whole thing.  If this were the case, we could break training down into a formulaic thing that will always lead to success.  As a coach, you know this is not true.  There is no one size fits all formula you can apply.

Working on cadence is fine.  But like you said, it is not the be-all end-all of training.  It's a very small part.  And mine and Rick's recommendation is that you can work on improving cadence by running more, which is something most of us can stand to do anyway. 

Here's my argument against the metronome:

It's an active device, whereas a cadence meter is a passive device.  With the metronome, you are forcing an arbitrary cadence that may or may not be appropriate for the person.  With a cadence meter, you are merely monitoring cadence.  How can anyone here say what to set the metronome at?  Should it be 90?  88?  80?  100?  How do we know what's the most efficient  rate for anyone?  How do we know when to stop using the metronome?

Here's the primary difference for me.  I don't believe the answer lies in tools.  Tools don't do it, the athlete does.  By relying on outside things, you're abdicating your training to the device; the athlete becomes the passive one in this situation.

Again, I said drills and running hills are good, useful ways to change cadence. 

I think we sometimes make the mistake to assume simple variables cause certain results but as you know our physiologies are so different and still very misunderstood hence it would be very optimistic to assume one change such as cadence is the main reason for the improvement of any athlete. I would argue that while certain characteristics are shared by elite runners the best way to improve is by just running. The correct progression in training load will allow the athlete to adapt to their optimal running stride, foot strike and cadence.

Also as you mentioned on your 2^nd post “most elite runners today they have a cadence of 180 or above, there has to be some correlation between that and running faster” and that is correct. But elite runners with higher cadences are running sub 5 min/mile, hence for an athlete running 10 min/mile a lower self selected cadence might be appropriate in order to avoid shortening the stride too much. In fact a change in cadence vs speed might affect economy which brings me to my 2^nd point.

Physiological speaking improvements in efficiency can only be measured as mechanical power output and we can only do this for cycling using a power meter measuring watts; for running we measure economy which is the integration of biomechanical and physiological factors and that is measured as the movement velocity for a given energy consumption. Since many factors affect economy and we can only quantify those improvements with lab equipment, making the assumption that cadence improves economy would also be wishful thinking.

I do ask my athletes to keep an eye on it but to be honest the emphasis I place on cadence it is less and less the more a coach; as long as the athlete keeps it within certain range for his/her current fitness (pace per mile) our main focus is training load. I don’t think is wrong to make the athlete aware of cadence as he/she improves but to place so much emphasis as some has told/taught us I personally think is moot point. (I believe the same for cycling cadence btw)

"Prescriptive" is not the same as "active".  There is a difference between using a tool to make adjustments yourself, and relying on the tool to actively tell you what to do.

Here's the thing, we're arguing in circles at this point.  You feel that it's necessary to use mechanical devices to work on cadence, I don't.  You feel that it's an integral part of training to dedicate time and effort on improving cadence.  I don't.  At that point, we can just agree to disagree.

I just refer back to this earlier post .........

They did not MAKE their bodies run at the rate they have, they developed it over time naturally.  Yes, there is a statistical "range" where most elite and experienced runners are.  And yes, that is somewhere in the 180 range +/- 5% or so.  But that is still a fairly broad range.  The key element is that they naturally developed this over miles and miles and miles of running.

Monitoring cycling cadence on the bike is just another tool you can use to observe things.  By switching from a lower cadence to a higher cadence using the same fitness level all you are doing is changing gears.  You will NOT be going faster.  If you could push a 53/17 at 80 rpms but decided you wanted to then push it at 100 you have to up your power output very significantly.  That would wear you out big time.  So you have to change gears to maintain the same speed at just a higher cadence in the lower gear.

To correlate that to running, lets say you have a stride length of 3' (landing nicely underneath you with whatever part of the foot you happen to hit with) and your turnover is 160.  Maintaining the same stride length and then turning over more, you will accelerate.  Guess what, you are now working harder ....... and will tire out faster.  So what happens to accommodate this?  Your body shortens its stride length to allow you to have that turnover and work at the same effort level.  It basically has "changes gears" for you.

There is nothing wrong with that at all, but think about it .... it will NOT make you faster to alter your turnover without building the engine more, just like altering your cadence on the bike will not.

Now, to show I'm not against the idea of a faster turnover there is a benefit of it in some way ...... the contact patches for running are the shoes/feet.  So if the feet are not on the ground for that long than the friction of the shoes is less and all you are fighting with is gravity (some more than others - myself included).  You want to maximize your "air time" so that the friction from your shoes is minimized.  But we do have to ask ourselves, what is the ideal ratio for that?  At what point does hitting the ground +/- 180 times with shorter strides (less ground contact per stride, but more times doing it) create more air time than longer strides with lower turnover (more ground contact per stride, but less times doing it)??

Ok, I totally get the point that 180 running cadence is not the absolute target for everyone but I used to plod. Really badly. Very up and down motion, heel striker with foot far ahead of my body. Even more so downhill. I can happily do a 1/2 marathon in 1h 50min with that technique but it is bad technique developed over many years of recreational running

Using a metronome is a great shock tactic to get me feeling the difference of running at a higher cadence (and forching that front foot further under my body). I'm going to keep using the metronome until that feeling comes more naturally and that I can keep up a higher cadence without the metronome. Then I'll be ready to fin my own cadence.

The first step tho is to force me out of the comfort zone of what is familiar and so well ingrained now. That's what the metronome will do for me.

Gerrard 

The same thing can be accomplished by doing striders and running downhill. 

Maybe, but I don't know what striders (can you enlighten me) are and my downhill style that has evolved over the years has the handbrake on full. I need a way to break that.

Gerrard 

There's a couple ways to do striders that I've come across, so others may have a variation.  The way I think works best is to accelerate to close to top speed and hold it for 30-60 sec.  Then drop back down to whatever pace you're normally running for 2-3x the length of the strider.  Then repeat.  They should be short enough in duration that they don't tax you.  They can also be done before or after a run, too.  Focus on feeling smooth and fluid.

As for running hills, read this.  The section on Leg-Speed is most important to the current aspect of the conversation, but you can read about how to work on improving stride length and leg strength as well.

Here is a good list of some drills that can be done.

If you wanna get really into it, read this, and the rest of the book. 

Fantastic - thanks for the links.