How to run faster (in light of the 180 cadence guideline)

I can't offer you any advice to your dilemma, but can offer sympathy.  I was in the same boat.  If i tried to get to that magical number I just got more and more tired.  I never got as detailed as you to the point of determining my actual stride distance, but I am 6'4", so I have a naturally longer stride, so for me to do 180 steps just felt like crazy feet. 

I gave up trying for that and just focused on taking shorter strides, but focusing on were i land. I moved towards mid foot landing, which became far more efficient.  I took more steps as a result, but have no idea how many per minute I take.  But it is about shortening the stride and quickening the steps.  I could never run at 180/minute so I stopped trying.  It just wore me out. 

In the last few months I have began to work on speed after a 2 year base building period.  I have not found the above quote to be true.  I am a natural mid foot striker.  What I had to work on with running drills was the idea of a forward lean.  As I have become better at it, through treadmill "hill work", drills, and practice, my cadence, and hence, my speed, has picked up.  It's A BIT like falling forward as you run....you can't help but take more steps, and your stride does not necessarily shorten....so you get faster.  (truly free speed as my HR does NOT go up)

I'm waaaaaay down on the list of people on this board who you whould take running advice from...but I've paid attention to alot of them and it's made me faster for longer runs.  I'm still getting faster, and with my cadence running about 174-177 I know I have even more speed to get.

It really is all about practice.

You found that not to be true because your speed increased.  If your speed remained the same and your cadence increased, your stride would be shorter.

This, plus cadence will change even with a slight variation of terrain/grade.  So unless you are running on a track...

If my speed remained the same when my cadence increased I would be wasting my time.  Why on earth would you want a quicker cadence/shorter stride without getting faster?

There IS something to higher cadence.   A low cadence tend to result in overstriding and less efficiency.  A faster cadence usually means more of a midfoot strike.

I work on a faster turnover/midfoot strike, but not hitting a magic number.

Even if I'm not faster, it's easier on my body.

bscoles1 - 2012-02-21 1:54 PM I've been thinking about this lately, and I wanted to draw from the BT wisdom I have heard Joe Friel (in the tri world) and lots of running folks (in the running world) refer to the principle that you should aim for a cadence of about 180 steps per minute (also referred to as 90 rpm per leg, or whatever). This is stated as being the most efficient and less wasted energy, etc. So, I am certainly willing to embrace that and train towards 180 steps per minute. But my question is, how do I get there. Currently, I run at about 10 minute miles. (actually a little faster, but for the sake of this example, let's use round numbers My normal steps per minute, when I am not trying for a high cadence, is about 155-160. Let's assume 160 for the calculation. So, if I run a mile in 10 minutes at 160 steps per minute, that gives me an average stride length of 3.3 feet. Today on the treadmill as an experiment, I set it on 10:00 pace, and (without the benefit of a footpod) I would try to focus on cadence by trying to get in 3 steps every second or 18 steps every six seconds. The best I could manage was approx 17 every six seconds; So, lets just assume I was around 170 steps per minute average. That would mean that for a 10 minute mile, my average stride length was 3.1 feet. If I could get to that elusive 180 cadence at a 10 minute pace, my stride length would be 2.9 feet. Observations: When I focused on cadence, and got up around the 170 steps per minute, I felt like I was taking much smaller steps compared to what I am used to. I HAD to take noticeably smaller steps in order to pick em up and put em down that much faster. I am 6'2", so I am used to longer strides. I also noticed less impact. By taking 'more' steps and 'shorter' steps in the same amount of time, it did feel like I was transferring energy more efficiently (even if only slightly). But I was also more fatigued, which I guess would be expected until I make it a habit and train up to the higher cadence. So my question is, in order to get faster, do I: A. shorten my stride length and aim for the 180 cadence or B. keep my stride length the way it is and just focus on running faster, and my cadence would naturally go up as I got faster? or C. you got it all wrong guy, it's this other thing!! Thanks!! I'm normally a lurker, so I really appreciate all the conversation and tips being passed around on here Bob

I run faster when I am not trying to do a bunch of calculations in my head Like others said, run more-frequency and check back in 60 days or so.

Maybe the fact that I'm faster with a higher cadence is because I'm already a midfoot striker naturally.  I know there are alot of different body types and running styles.....I'm sure not trying to start an argument.....my experiences are my own.  For me, faster cadence means faster run....more faster cadence means more faster run.

Because it gave me a number to shoot for, and seems to fit well with my running style.  When I started looking for more speed I used the 180 number to see if it would help....I was in the 163-167 range.  I'm now about 10 strides quicker and my speed is falling.  I'm going to stay here for a bit to get somfortable with it, and then I'm going to look for the other half dozen or so and see what that does for me.  I don't find it hard to make the calculations....I'm always looking for something to do on my runs since I don't wear headphones and usually run alone.

I run with a metronome set to 180.  When I want to speed up, I take a larger stride.  When I want to slow down, I shorten it.  I attack uphills and downhills with 180.

Some think it is just a number.  I like it because I try to aim for a 90 cadence on the bike.  That way may legs are ready for the turnover when I come off the bike.

I've been trying to say this (not very well).......thanks.  The forward lean was the BIG thing for me.....as I said above, it naturally followed that my cadence got quicker.

Shane....first, I appreciate all I have learned from you, Scout, Experior, and others....I've said this before, it's been gold to me as I learn to run long....especially "late" in my athletic career.

I will say this though.....I have seen plenty of runners who increase training stress by running more who do NOT get  faster.  My own uncle has ran over 20 marathons....I bet there is not 10 minutes difference in finish time through any of them.  He is the same 11:50-12:10 per mile runner he has always been....no matter if he's running 60 mpw or 15 mpw.  He just doesn't ever run fast....or in his case, faster. 

I agree with everything you wrote, except that.  My experience....from watching others, is that more miles does not, in and of itself, make for a faster runner.  Like my uncle in my other example, I know plenty of people at the Y where I work out alot who are in the middle of marathon builds.....a large percentage of them are NOT getting faster even though they are adding miles weekly.  My experience is that if you leave out the "sometimes hard" then you will not necessarily get faster just by adding miles.