How to run faster (in light of the 180 cadence guideline) (Page 3)

THIS was the story for me. As I made the transition from back of the pack to middle of pack runner over the past 18mos, it was via the transition above. For me, the lean from the ankles was a lightbulb. As opposed to leaning from the waist.

Ok, but if I take a look at my "easy" pace now compared to when I started back to running 27 months ago I see significant change downward.  I'm sure that will level off, but I'm not sure where yet.  There is no way I could have stayed at 11-12 minutes per mile, which is where I started, and expect to make the gains I have made, and want to make in the future.  I don't think you can compare a 2 year snapshot of an accomplished runner and the first 2 years of a "beginner". Right?

I think 180 has something in relation to heart beat.... this is the average max effort heart rate for the average person.

I too have improve my run times focusing on the 180...  while your strides may decrease, your cardio fitness is building - when you reach that point, you go for technique to lengthen stride - kind of like swimming, technique will get you so far, but fitness is where its at

100x this.

When it comes to fitness/triathlon I never made any meaningful effort to figure out ANYTHING until I got on this board.  Those were the days.

I checked my logs. My training pace has my cadence at 165. Specific race pace cadence is at 175..My race cadence at the same pace is at 180 without thinking...wth

I don't know.... 

Hey there.  I just wanted to check in to give you my own subjective experience with cadence.  I actually attended a chi-running course  a few months back and started encorporating running with a metronome on the instructors suggestion.  At first I started at a cadence of 157 but slowly have been increasing the BPM and am now up to 177 comfortably.  

What I found is that with an increased cadence, I am running slightly faster with increased endurance.  The most noticable thing is that I am doing this with a lower PER.  It could just be some type of placebo effect of course, but at the very least, when I'm doing my long runs of +15 miles, it helps my form when I can just focus on my footfalls and cadence when I turn on the metronome.  I also found that even without the metronome on, I have adjusted to running around 175-177.

Just wanted to put in my two cents!

Or you're learning how to listen to your body better. Fitness can still improve even when you're not increasing the load.

I'm getting a little faster by slowing cadence down a touch. That's what my body is saying to do.

   The thing is...Jack Daniels doesn't say you have to run at exactly 180, he states in his book that you want to increase your cadence and the number you want to aim for is 180.  He even says that some runners are 178 or so and that 180 is only an average.  Obviously no one expects to run @ 180 100% of the time!  BUT if one trains their body to a 180 cadence then during a race they should be close to that number for the majority of the time, which is what jack Daniels has found to be an ideal cadence. Running @ 180 does decrease the impact on your body and therefore, in theory, should allow you to run more.

So in my brief time here at BT, this argument seems to come up weekly or more frequently. I'll give you my .02. Run a few strides or pickups and count your stride there. I bet it is probably closer to the "mythical" 180 spm.

It is difficult to shorten stride length at a slow pace because you might start to feel like you are just shuffling with little tiny steps, especially at your height. One thing to take into consideration about Daniel's findings is that he was looking at elites that were racing (the slowest paces probably like 6 m/mi pace or something). If you are training at 10 m/mi and are pretty tall, you probably aren't going to fit in the bell curve of 180 spm. As you pick up speed with increased fitness (run more miles as suggested) you will probably pick up some cadence. Just avoid overstriding. No need to overly compress your stride...

I agree. There is a great deal of dissention on this topic and certain people like to defend the argument that '180' is not a number that should be sought...I think that everyone must find out for themselves what is ideal but a good starting point is to try to learn to run without over or understriding. That is best taught by learning a quick, light step emulating the 'elites' at 180 steps per minute.

The problem I have here with this site is that many people seem to ignore the fact that a shorter/quicker stride is associated with less landing shock inuries. And I thought one of the important things that less experienced runners should learn is how to not get injured as they progress in training.

Running more frequently and ultimately further helps establish an 'optimal' cadence. Adding speed in the form of strides initially then reps>tempo>MP (projected estimates) all help runners progress to faster times, if desired.

Cadence always seems to be a sticking point, though...