The Running Holy Grail - Maximizing efficiency and the quest for 90 cadence
Seeking the collective input and knoweldge from the Haus.
I have only running seriously since 2009 when I ran my first marathon. I've always been pretty fit (collegiate cycling team, multiple 21ish 5Ks through my 20s with no training). I ran my first marathon to a 3:46 but I knew my execution was very poor and training mediocre. I ran my second marathon in late 2010 and ran 3:10 for a PR (Ran a 1:28 Half Mary PR the prior month). Focused 2011 on Triathlon and IMAZ where I ran a 3:47. Ran Boston Marathon this spring to a 3:43 (it was 90+ degrees and humid which played a large role). Fellow ENer Rob Tagher ran Boston with me and we trained a lot together during which he shared his wealth of knowledge on running form, etc. That, coupled with guidance from coach P had me seeking to increase my cadence and efficiency as my self measured cadences were in the high 70s.
I raced (and PR'd) in the Indianapolis Monumental Half Marathon 2 weekends ago to a 1:26:23. I have focused almost solely on this race and getting a new PR which I was successful in. I did invest in a Garmin Foot Pod to measure my cadence and rack up some data to analyze. The data I have now confirms my manual calculations. In fact, my Half Mary PR had a average cadence of only 77 Link Here -> http://bit.ly/SXDBQN . Only during my 30-40 second hill repeats do I see anything at or above 90.
I've also embedded a link to a video I took this week at various speeds on a treadmill...all at 1.5% incline. I'm running an 8:06 pace from 1:58 - 3:04 (cadence ~82), 6:53 pace from 3:17-4:120 (cadence ~82), 6:31 pace from 4:46 - 5:49(cadence ~82), and 6:03 pace from 6:16 - 7:19 (cadence ~84)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo9tg4zp4p4
My current running form seems to be working pretty well as I am not overly injury prone and my results typically rank in the top 3%. That said, as I look forward, I'd be interested in everyone's thougths about opportunity areas as I jump back into long course triathlon in 2013 with remote, albeit possible chances of securing a Kona spot.
So...what do you think? I know there is a lot of empirical data to suggest 90 RPM is the optimal cadence at which fore/mid foot striking occurs. I've been running in Newtons for the past 2 years and based on my wear patterns I believe I am a mid foot striker even at those lower cadences.
Finally...I looked at these pictures from the race 2 weeks back which seem to confirm a mid/fore foot strike.
That said, I've continued to improve my running despite the low cadence.
If it matters, I'm a fair amount taller than most runners in my range at 6'2 with a 34" inseam.
Appreciate your thoughts. I am entering a bike focused 6 week plan now, so pleny of time to analyze and compare.
Should I not worry about it, or are there further gains to be had by increasing my cadence?
Comments
Rob - first try at embedding didn't work...try now
That said, I am a far slower runner than you. My pre-EN Vdot was 37. This week I tested to a 43. My 1/2 marathon PR is 1:42. My first 1/2 was 1:58xx. I have seen gains with greater cadence, but I am not in your league.
FWIW, my bike cadence is also a bit soft at about 86. Where is your bike cadence out of curiosity?
I am curious to see what the runners think. Thanks for the hard work pulling this post together...
Jeremy - no question that a faster cadence is better for long distance running. Wm Jenks did a review of all his runs for an extended period, and discovered what seemed to be a linear relationship between speed (pace) and cadence - the faster he ran, the faster his cadence. I see the same thing myself. @ long run pace, I go 89-92, but when I'm doig intervals of 1/2 mile or less on a track, I hit 97-99.
The value of a faster, shorter stride is simple: running is a series of connected hops. Shorter hops means less work each step. But to stay at the same speed requires a faster turnover. Sort of like the advantage of aerobars in cycling - you can go faster with fewer watts when low on the bars compared to sitting up. Less effort, more speed, a win-win.
So, how do you improve your cadence? Beats me if there are any tricks or drills, other than just getting out there and doing it. You can set you Garmin to beep if you fall below a specific cadence, that may be the best way to start to ingrain it. Remember, though, you are not trying to go faster while learning this, simply turnover quicker with shorter strides. I never did anything specific, not even something as simple as single leg pedal drills on the bike, I just kept thinking quicker/shorter, and now if I go below 90, I feel like a slug.
I've found in myself, and from various other sources (as as here), that the optimum range tends to be in the 85-95 range. Here is the more pertinent part of that cite above:
Just as a cadence of 85-95 is recommended for cycling, most run coaches, including ChiRunning instructors, train their athletes to achieve a run cadence of 85-90 steps of the right foot (or left, but not both) per minute. This range of 85-90 steps or beats per minute (bpm) works for most runners (taller athletes will tend toward the lower end of the range) and is optimal for energy conservation because the rapid turnover of the legs helps the muscles to clear out lactic acid, a normal byproduct of burning oxygen and sugars to produce energy, but which when allowed to accumulate in the muscles causes that familiar burn that reduces the amount of time an athlete wants or is able to keep exercising. Continually removing lactic acid from the muscles by rapid, light contraction of those muscles, allows the aerobic energy system to keep working longer to produce the energy necessary to keep you running.
I'm on the taller side (6'1"), and find that I can maintain 90 at the start of a run, but after a while I reach a point of diminishing returns - trying to maintain 90 precisely results in a higher HR and more muscle fatigue than backing off even slightly to something more like 85. But that cite also does have instruction for how to go about increasing cadence and avoiding fatigue. It takes time - when I first started paying attention to cadence, I think I was in the high 70's. I've still got work to do, but I also know that at this point, the benefits are rather incremental as compared to when I first started paying attention.
What faster cadence has done for me is to cease heel striking (which only serves to put on the brakes, in addition to the IT band issues it gave me), and after a while, I've learned to sense that when I don't land mid-foot, I can actually feel my legs pulling my body forward. When I land on my midfoot, and I have appropriate lean, my center of mass is either on top of, or slightly ahead of, the vertical plane directly above my midfoot - so running becomes more an act of flying through the air with brief moments of contact with the ground, and opposed to something where I have to use muscles to pull myself along.
EDIT: Do you have a way to slow that video down? If so - that will be a lot more telling. Honestly, to me, it looks like you still heelstrike a tad - or at least over-reach, even if your weight doesn't fully bear down until you are over your midfoot. I actually tend to have the same issue. Here is an example - last year I went to work with a chi running instructor, and while running back and forth on a 30 foot section of indoor track isn't exactly the greatest for inducing well structured and steady state form, you can definitely tell that 'before' I was heel striking noticeably more. The interesting thing is that my shoes never showed significant wear on the heels - you'd look at my shoes and think I barely touched my heels on the ground at all. However, they'd touch ever-so-briefly every step, even though there wasn't a lot of weight on them at that moment in time.
The other thing you can tell in that video of 'before' and 'after' is the difference in general bobbing up and down movement - less energy expended in fighting gravity in the 'after', meaning more is available to push off and move forward. Thats another thing to be gained with a higher cadence.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/09/running-technique-part-iv-running.html
@Tom - As this article mentions, that study saying that 75% of elite runners are heel strikers has several things to consider before making a sweeping statement:
1) It was a Japanese road race, so while there were a few elite Kenyans, the vast majority of competitors were Japanese (so it is limited to how Japanese elite runners train, and their mechanics)
2) It was taken when the race was 3/4 finished - when fatigue would have been setting in.
3) As one progresses through the ranks in that race to the faster people, the percentage of those who fore/mid-foot strike vs heel strike starts to climb.
Granted, that article is by one person (Steve Magness), and while he has qualifications in the Olympic training circuit and such, it's still only one person. However, I believe he does bring up valid counter-points to the idea that elite runners are predominantly heel-strikers.
I have been a slow runner, Vdot 32 coming into EN now a 40, which is still not where I want to be however, I have worked on my cadence. I started working on it years ago as I was turning over low 80ish.
I started using my Timex watch set to the stop watch setting. I would go out for a run a warm up then concentrate on pick ups of 30 sec. with the goal of 45 steps per foot. That is X2 equals 90.
In the beginning it seemed to just wear me out. Fast forward and drilling that I adopted the 20 sec rule which x3 equals 90. Less time you have to pay attention to your watch.
Like anything else with sport you need to practice it. As now for me I turn over 90 pretty much all the time and 92 when I put the giddy up on. It has made me faster and FWIW the less time your foot spends on the ground the less of a chance for it to get injured.
Couple comments specific to you - #1 Unlike myself and the others above, who have made great gains by increasing the cadence, I think most of your gain will be in the area of improved endurance. So don't expect your vDOT to go up as your cadence increases, or even your 1/2 mary time. I think your marathon time would improve slightly. Since I don't think I can talk you into joining me for any ultras, I think your biggest gain is remaining injury free and improving your full Ironman run time. Increased turnover is especially helpful the longer you are going to go and is a huge help when coming off 112 mile ride. I truly believe with the increased cadence you could bring your IM run time down to where coach P is. #2 Tough to tell from treadmill video (I don't really trust the treadmill when it comes to running form because I think it takes gravity and the lean out of the equation too much). To me it still looks like (regardless of which part of your foot makes contact) you are getting your foot out in front of you beyond your center of gravity. I would concentrate on keeping those feet under and behind you. Always think "knees down, heels up" #3 Make sure you are doing some butt kick drills before every run with the highest cadence you can do, even going above 90 if possible. Only takes 1-2 minutes. #4 start running with a metronome and increase cadence 1-2 per week to bring it up. #5 consider some runs in five fingers or very minimal shoes that are not Newtons.
Just let me know when you want to go for a run. I've got a clip on metronome you can have and I can return your power meter book to you.
Freeze your video at the 6:27 frame. Check out what your lead leg looks like. Heel is hitting first out in front of your body. You don't heelstrike as much when you are running slower. I noticed that your cadence doesn't change much as you speed up. If cadence is the same but speed is increasing, that generally means your taking longer strides as you get faster. Those longer strides are causing you to OVERstride, leading to a much greater heel-first landing in front of your body. Improving your cadence as you speed up will help keep that stride shorter. Ultimately, you want your foot to be making contact with the ground UNDER your body, not in front of it.
The whole mid-foot/fore-foot discussion is important, but so is WHERE your foot hits the ground. The biggest key is getting your foot to contact the ground underneath you, not in front of you. Any contact in front of your body is, in essence, braking. It also increases the stress on your knees/hips/back to be contacting that far in front of you.
Wow...great stuff so far. Thanks for the input all.
I try to make it as simple as possible: choose any 20 second interval and count footstrikes to make sure there are 30. Repeat until you are stringing together these micro intervals across runs, then weeks, then months, then years.
I've done this for a long long time, and very frequently (as in, there's probably not a 5 minute period in any run where I don't do this at least once or twice). You just have to start, on keep on keeping on.
The other form stuff, is important but should not be done in isolation: you should be integrating all the 'look fors,' like forward lean, footstrike beneath stance line, no bending at the waist, etc etc because they are all interconnected. My advice: drills, relentless focus on form, using any one 'system' that's out there, but just work on it. I followed Bobby McGee's stuff, but others swear by Chi, Pose, or whatever. I think the important part is if you're seeking efficiency, always be trianing form.
All your photos show your foot flat making you think it is a midfoot strike, but photos 1, 2 & 4 are late mid-stance - your unweighted knee is already ahead of body position. Photos 3 & 5 are just after strike so they may indicate a midfoot strike but don't actuallly show it.
In order to land midfoot or forefoot, your foot needs to be in a toe down position just prior to strike. Ideally your heal just bearly touches after midfoot strike and before transitioning to midstance where the heal unweights.
Try doing some short (100 yds) drills where you toe strike and toe off with no heal contact and see how that feels as far as where you foot is relative to body position. I think you will find it is directly under you and you are forced to quicken your cadence to keep up.
Just curious
This is a great question. In an IM marathon we are trying to use as little energy as possible, as we start out the run with a somewhat depleted tank. The shorter, quicker stride uses less energy (IMO; we had a prolonged discussion on this topic earlier this year, which I can't easily find in the forums). So @ the start of an IM marathon, when one is going verrrry slow compared to usual training paces, and one is verrry tired, compared to usual training efforts, it's temptting to just shuffle along with a very slow turnover. Picking up the cadence is cheaper from an energy cost perspective than trying to go with longer, slower strides. Thus, the imporance of at least some runs done after one is tired from biking, if only to focus for 10-20 minutes on cadence, trying to go slow with a fast turnover. Not a natural thing to do, as there is usually a direct correlation betwen speed and cadence.
Is this a normal response as my body adapts? If so, how long before that higher cadence feels 'natural' because it sure doesn't now!
2010: 79
2011: 83
2012: 89
The average of 89 doesn't tell the whole story. The mode average is probably something like 90 or 91, but recivery intervals are usually 85-ish and drag down the average.
Achieving the increase took about 6 runs, all of which were in November/December of 2011. First, I set my Garmin to display cadence on all screens. Next, I went for some 30 minute runs where I did a warmup, then did mile repeats where I ensured my cadence was always above 90. I found this "felt easy" but required taxes my cardio more, and my HRs were higher. These runs were hard. I could look up the paces I achieved, but they weren't faster or slower than normal. After I had done thi about 5 times, I pretty much knew the "feel" of a 90's cadence, and sure enough my cadence stabilized at about 90. I don't think about it much anymore, although I'll have to if I want to get it up to the 95 range. My typical cadence evolution in a run now (not by design, just how it hapens) is 93-94 for the first few minutes, then stable at 90-91, then after about 45-60 minutes it's 89. On long runs and/or really brutal days it goes to 88 or 87. Example of how it looks in a race: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/240117364
@Al- When you say it's counter-intuitive to increase cadence, but decrease speed, is this a skill we should be able to turn on/off? For example, during a warm up, do you start at 90 and work on a slowing the natural pace, then continue with 90spm in the main set with an increase in effort and speed? Or warm up at whatever cadence feels comfortable and then hit 90 for the main set, assuming once you "know" what 90 feels like, it can be turned on and off (like your Z3 pace on the bike during the in season)? Thanks.
@ Claire ... Heres what I was trying to say. I was talking specifically about performing on the IM marathon. The "natural" thing for most runners is a direct correlation between cadence and running speed . @ slower speeds, our cadence will tend to be slower. But in the IM marathon, I believe there is a benefit in terms of reduced energy expenditure to focus on a quicker turnover then one might find natural, especially at the start of the marathon, when we will be running VERRRRY slowly. A quicker cadence at the start... say 88 rpm instead of 82-84...will result in less work with each step, hopefully saving a bit of energy.
So I advocate practicing, on bricks specifially, in the first couple of miles, aiming for a cadence of 90 right off the bat, while keeping at that EP+30s pace. Not a natural thing to do, and not what I do on a regular run, when I just ease into both my cadence and pace over the first couple of miles.
I might be all wet about this, but I think it helps me in my goal of even splitting the marathon, starting out slow but with a quick turnover.
I ran 8 miles yesterday, and tried to focus on cadence as much as I could (link below). As you can see...I did better, with avg cadence of 85 for my warmup and both of my 2 X 1 mile Z3 intervals at 6:40. I'm starting to feel what higher cadence is like...it's far from feeling natural, but does feel less un-natural than it did 10 days ago.
I've had pretty good experience with the 'rule of 10', so hoping that if I continue to focus on the higher cadence my body will learn the new technique as 'normal'. It was this way for changing bike fit, new golf swings, etc so I remain hopeful. Higher cadence is still taking on my cardiovascular system as my HR for a given pace seems to be 5-8BPM higher than I'm used to. You can also see the last 4 miles my cadence dropped from a combination of fatigue and lower focus.
http://connect.garmin.com/splits/244722732
I got a Garmin foot pod a year ago specifically to work on my cadence during bricks. I now am running with it attached to my shoes for almost all wkos. I do not look at the cadence while I run, nor do I have the beeper set for a min or max. But I do reflect on the cadence each time I enter a workout into my log(s). I notice over the year that, overall, my cadence seems to be rising. I am now at 99 (was @ 94-5) for speed work 7:00 min/mi and faster. For warm-up pace of 10>>8:30 min/mi, I'm now @ 88/9 (was @ 82-4). Simply knowing that I will review the cadence afterwards has caused an increase (maybe it's an improvement?).
Do I think I should run above 90 for a pace of 9:00/mile, simply because I can do 99 for 6:30-6:58? At some point in slower speeds, the srtride length gets un-natural, too short, it seems, if I go above 90 rpm. Maybe it's not a good idea to imprint that neuro-muscular pattern, once a certain cadence is reached? I dunno, I'm not a running geek. I only started when I was 50, and I have never really studied running theory, I just bascially try to feel internally as if I am graceful, rather than awkward. A too rapid cadence at slower speeds (just like a too slow cadence) simply feels inefficient. Too Fast=mincing, Too slow=slogging, lumbering.
That comment and the charts are EXACTLY where I was a year ago when going through the same process. Now I run at 90 without even thinking about it, and my HR is back to where it ought to be. You'll get there, and I'll bet it won't even take very long.
I'm a short-legged guy. Mostly torso makes up my 6'1" frame now. Was always super short. So, in order to keep up with my other family members, I chose to take long strides instead of taking more steps and looking like the road runner.
Do you believe that teaching yourself to walk with higher cadence necessarily translates to running with higher cadence?
It a long tread but someone mentioned minimalist shoes along the way, I would suggest zero drop instead of minimalist. The point being that if you are midfoot striking, your heels should touch as well, and a heavily padded shoe doesn't allow this to naturally happen. (I hope that made sense.) I started using altra shoes last year and they were amazing. It was like running with flats, but with much more cushion and support.
@al - have you tried a metronome??? It worked wonders for me. People in prospect park, in brooklyn, are probably still trying to figure out why there is always beeping when I run by.
@Jeremy - you should ease into it. It probably would take more than 10 sessions. The metronome will help you to refocus without looking at you watch.
@ matt - maybe it is new and not yet engrained in your system - once you hit the wall, you can concentrate on cadence and form and you shouldn't slow as much provided that you are leaning forward and picking your feet up off the ground rather than pushing off.
@scott - I tried that last year and didn't find them related
Just another data point RE: slow vs fast running and the cadence - I find it easier to maintain higher cadence when going faster, as long as I am not trying to muscle through it! . If I am trying to muscle through an interval at a fast pace, it is because I am fatiguing, and I overstride, my cadence drops, and I start bringing in (and fatiguing) non-running muscles that ultimately lead to ITB issues. It is easier to slip into a slower cadence when going slower because there is less to "muscle" through - but to me I find it always comes down to foot placement. If I am avoiding heel striking, my cadence will be in the 88-90 range, regardless of pace. Therefore, my stride lengthens as I speed up - but it has to lengthen behind me, where I can use the glute muscles to more or less push forward off the ground. Then, it starts getting into the whole form thing with leaning forward, core alignment, etc (I follow Chi running, but I suspect Pose running is very similar).