How to run faster (in light of the 180 cadence guideline) (Page 2)

To the original poster...  Here's what I did to get me through my first supported marathon.

I used pace music to start my cadence off at 165 for the first hour.  The second hour was 170, the third 175, the fourth 180.  I trained using pace music depending on how I felt within those ranges to keep my pace up, and I adjusted stride length for terrain, fitness, etc.  It may not be the right way, but it worked for me.

Now that I'm in triathlon, I rarely use music anymore.  My natural cadence has settled between 175 and 185 depending how I feel, but is usually pretty close to 175 in training, 180-185 in racing.

PM me if you'd like my resources for the music.  It makes keeping a cadence pretty brainless.

ETA:  I'm still seeing PR's.  I agree with Left Brain...  I needed to challenge some aspect - whether it's cadence or stride length.  I can't just run lots and expect to get faster.

Run where you are comfortable!  With that said, like others mentioned you should be trying to land on the mid/forefoot with your feet directly under you center.  It will prevent the "braking" caused by a longer stride with a heel strike. 

Like you, I'm 6'2" and at first those tiny strides felt really weird! However I continued working on speeding up my cadence (I really have no idea what it is) and now I can sustain a faster pace for much longer.  Maybe this is due to more running but I can tell  you one thing for certain; I don't hurt as much as I used to after any given run.  No more calf/shin/knee/hip pain at any distance or exertion level. To me that is way more valuable than any time gains I have achieved!

Care to share?

I'm not trying to "change", but I have been paying attention for a number of reasons. My natural cadence seems to be 170. I'm OK with that as long as I am mindful to keep my feet under me and light on my feet. I would be curious what different beats felt like since all I do now is just count for 30 sec or a minute.

"How to run faster" -- I'm with Scout, Shane, and others -- run more, wisely.

A few comments about the 180 thing:

* as someone said, this number was found to be the mean of elites during races of various distances -- however, it's worth noting that the standard deviation is pretty low.  Still, it's worth considering whether this is a case of "Should we do as the elites do?".

* JD has said (for example, on letsrun.com but also other places) that when elites run slower or faster than race pace, their cadence DOES change, but not linearly with the change in pace.  In short:  cadence changes less than pace.  So obviously a change in pace (among elites) is accomplished (according to JD) more by change in stride length than by change in cadence, though both are involved.

* For some people whose cadence is significantly below 180, it could make sense to aim for higher cadence, as doing so can be an effective way to prevent over-striding (not heel-striking...over-striding).  Overall height as well as leg length can be a factor here.

* JD has suggested (reasonably) that, all other things being equal, lower cadence implies higher impact forces.  I think that the truth is more complicated than that, but as a first approximation, it's a pretty good explanation of why quicker turnover (i.e., higher cadence) can be helpful for some people.

I'm always leery of trying to copy a running style based on someone else, or a book.  Yes, there are some key errors to avoid so you don't get hurt but to me it just seems wrong to try to precisely copy some other runner who may be physiologically different than you.

Increasing your cadence to 180 doesn't inherently make you a faster runner.

Based on my personal experience n=1, it took my major heel strike stride, which gave me no end of injuries, and toned down the injuries to the point where I could run regularly, increase the mileage, and that... increased my speed.

Oh- a metronome would drive me nuts.  I run to music at 180bpm.  Makes it fun and easy. check out Jog.fm

I'm not a heel striker...never have been.  In fact, my real running background was as a miler in which I ran mostly on my forefoot. (now 30 years ago)  As a midfoot striking "distance runner" cadence is all about speed for me.  I'm still experimenting.  I'm a very patient runner.  I have found, without a doubt, that quicker cadence means faster miles...and the quicker cadence was easier to develope once I started a good forward lean.

I'll not argue with anything the running heavies on this site have to offer....it's just too good.

That being said....nobody can tell me that faster cadence doesn't inherently equal faster miles for my n=1.

I'll be a happy runner when I can do 13.1 in sub 8 splits....I figure on another year.... if age doesn't get me first.

Now that I'm getting back to running, and paying attention to what I'm doing... I was checking my cadence from time to time... 170 at 9:00m/m... 170 at 10:00 m/m. Not that that is a big speed change, or that I'm even disagreeing with what you said. I just thought it interesting.

And I guess I should say I'm not a "natural" 170 bpm runner. 170 is not at all uncomfortable and I do it if I think about my cadence. I naturally do 90 rpm on the bike and I figured that had something to do with it.

Still trying to get the feel for the whole "ankle lean".  I think I lean at the waste too much and I have been concentrating on head up chest open for now which gets me upright.

well, we're all different.  I'd never suggest that one solution should work for every person. 

I've played with it on the treadmill.  my HR and intensity doesn't change when I maintain a constant speed and change my cadence (165-185).  Also, it doesn't matter what speed I'm trying to run (unless I'm near sprint pick-ups), I run at the same cadence.   So, for me, cadence doesn't affect speed directly, but taking smaller, faster steps is easier on the body and allows me to run more.

Oh, I get that.  And I understand your point.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I fit that category as I've not even approached a "threshold run", and have no plans to do that for my training or in the marathon I'm working toward on 4/15.  Like I said, I'm very patient.  Still.....my experience is that you have to "run fast"....whatever that means for you, to "get fast" (also whatever that means for you).  To say that you will get to where you want, speed-wise, by just running longer, or more, has NOT been my experience.  While I can easily see the "added stress means faster over time"....I have not seen that purely added miles equals the stress for more speed in every instance. That HAS to come with running faster SOMETIMES.  Again, I can only comment on what I've seen and experienced.

Then again, as I've said all along, I'm a work in progress.  Unless the wheels fall off, which doesn't appear likely judging from how I feel, I'll reach 175 miles this month (a personal best), and all thanks goes to the people on this board I've already mentioned....and a couple I'm sure I forgot...so I'm not too willing to buck the collective knowledge....still, I know what I've seen from some people who increase their mileage but NEVER increase their speed and wonder why they don't get faster.

Agreed......now get to 6:25 miles for a 5K which is where I'd like to end up.  Do you think you can do that by running 9:45 - 10:00 training pace even if you add more miles?  I bet you can't.

x2 on podrunner.  MotionTraxx is also a good place for specific bpm music.

I'm a big fan of 180+ cadence.  Has worked well for me.  Was a 'shuffler' before I upped my cadence.  Also had injury issues.

Setting new PR's each year for past three years in all running distances.  At 50, I'm hoping to get to a 10K pace of 8:00min/mile this year.  I also only run 3 x week.  The rest of the tri training has helped greatly.

The overall advice is not as simple as this one point upon which you seem to be overly focused.  Running more miles is part of the equation. Mostly slow (so you can run more), sometimes fast. I'll add over multiple training cycles to the equation as well. In other words, the "run more" mantra MUST be considered in the long term. Running more for an 18 week training cycle is not it. Running more for years of multiple 18 week training cycles per year is it. Additionally, most people do not approach what would be the "more" in the "run more" advice.

And you're right ... if you're only running 12 minute miles for those miles, you're not going to get anything but good at running 12 minute miles. You have to train yourself to run easy ... while progressively having faster paces feel easy. Then, once a week or so ... maybe twice ... add some hard miles into the mix. These can be at the track, up and down hills, or simply as a solid chunk of LT miles within a medium distance run (say 6 of a 10 mile run).

If your current marathon training mileage will not accommodate a  weekend long run and a mid-week medium-long run (8-12 miles), you're not "running more" enough.

Try focusing only on picking up the foot quickly and let the landing happen on its own. By reducing your time spend on the support leg you will increase your turnover and cadence.

The 20 marathons was my uncle....and yeah, I see nothing wrong with it.  In fact, I admired his discipline and consistency.

At my age, 6:25/mile for a 5K may be a pipe dream for me too....but I'm going to find out.  There was a time when that was a slow race for me....but that was 3 decades ago.  I AM using the "more miles to get faster" idea, and, back to the original post, I have found that a faster cadence is a key to faster runs for me while keeping my perceived effort the same as much slower runs. After 27 months I still haven't let one go except on the treadmill a very few times.  The last mile of my last 9 mile run was under 7:30.....and I was still in zone 2.  I credit the "more miles" with alot of that for sure since my only true speed work has been on a treadmill program once a week....although some of that is VERY fast.  I don't think I could get faster without all of it.

Wait....what?  I'm not tracking you on that one.  Can you explain more?