Home› General Training Discussions

Run Cadence & Power: a slightly different take on the question

Joseph LombardiJoseph Lombardi
in General Training Discussions

 So...I read alot in the forums about working on run cadence and the magic of 90...I think we can all agree that there is nothing particularly magic about 90 but that it is a fair benchmark of efficiency ...some will be a bit higher some a bit lower...

Typically I here folks in the Haus trying to work on increasing their cadence....because they find (when they finally measure) that their cadence is much lower than they thought or realized....

I'm kinda coming from the opposite direction and I have a theory and question....

So I finally picked up a cadence sensor because I was interested...and lo behold my typical cadence is upwards of 95...

and I have recently been working on slowing that cadence down (closer to 90) and focusing on hip/power/leg drive/push off...and I believe this has been improving my efficiency.........

My theory...is that I spent alot of time in 2010 and 2011 running on a treadmill at typically .5 degree incline...I think I became very efficient at leg turnover but sacrificed leg power....

...and think I am now benefitting from Hill bounding/Hill strides and this focus on lower turnover more push off/drive...

Does this make sense? and is there anything else you would add to the training to improve this.

Comments

  • rklingrkling
    @Joseph: As someone who also has the same issue (I won't call it a problem), I wouldn't worry about slowing down your cadence. The idea of increasing cadence to > 90 cycles/min is based on the observation that most elite runners have a cadence this fast or faster. The idea is that if your cadence is slower, you are probably spending too much time in the air (swing phase) or on the ground (stance phase). My natural cadence has always been quick; in fact, that's how my wife says she can spot me a mile away, as I'm the one with the short, choppy stride. Funny, but one of my friends told me that, after going to a running clinic, she saw me running one day, and thought, "That's how we were told to run." (made me feel good, but it's not something I've ever done consciously)

    Bounding will help with leg drive, but the idea isn't to lower turnover, but to increase power. So, the idea in your mind should be on drive.

    Trying to slow down your turnover may adversely affect your biomechanics. What I would might do instead is work on stretching out your hips, as this can incrementally lengthen your stride. Lengthening your stride without overstriding (and without changing your cadence) will get you from point A to point B faster.

  • Joseph LombardiJoseph Lombardi

     Thanks Richard...thats great feedback...in fact one of my issues...which I think exacerbated my dilemma ( I don't think of it as a problem either)...is working in an office for the past 20+ years and sitting on my butt...my hips are very inflexible...and you are correct in that I need to work on flexiblity and drive...thanks again...Good running to you!

  • Dave TalloDave Tallo
    I agree wih Richard; I wouldn't seek to slow cadence, unless it was running a little too hot during v02 or ftp and driving RPE or HR high. The cadence piece, in my mind, comes with a few other markers of efficient running, where these conspire to have the runner using less muscular force, and more other forces, such as gravity, elasticity, and so on.
  • Al TruscottAl Truscott

    IMO, given the choice between a 7 min/mi pace @ 90 cadence, and a 7 min/mi pace @ 95, I'd think the 95 is preferable, for the simple reason that each stride is doing less work. There might be some issues with size - Richard is a lepruchaun, and JL is ... what?. I suspect bigger folks will turn over slower, simply due to the length of their legs. Those  "fast, elite runners" especially the marathoners, are usually smaller guys/gals. Me, @ 5/9", I go about 94-99 when doing Z4/5 intervals, and 92-3 when running @ HMP.

  • William JenksWilliam Jenks
    Lower cadence at the same speed means more distance per stride. Either you have to push off harder if you're landing in the same spot or you're landing farther in front and have to pull and/or are braking a bit. If there's any chance of the latter, stick with the higher cadence.

    I think Al's observation is right, too.
  • Joseph LombardiJoseph Lombardi

     Agree across the board....that I don't really have a desire to lower my cadence....how do I improve hip drive/strenght etc without sacrificing anything else

     

    ....fyi Al I'm 5' 8" 148-152...(not large)...

  • Brian Quarton [OLD]Brian Quarton [OLD]

    Joseph, contrary to popular belief many (not all) elite runners race at a cadence far above 90. 90 is like a good goal if you are lower. A recent issue of Running Times addressed this. It was interesting. On the final laps of a championship race 2 guys were duking it out. When it was time to kick, they each responded differently. One rasied his cadence to 100+, the other dropped cadence into the 80's. I can't recall which won, but the point stuck with me. At the end of a race, use whatever you've got left! One had power and the other had turnover. http://www.runnersworld.com/race-tr...age=single Found it.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.