STRIDE LENGHT AND CADENCE

Juan Vergara

I'm working on lengthening my stride and though a key ingredient will be increasing hip flexors flexibility (work in progress), it seems as though lowering my cadence, from my natural 90 (180) to 84 (168) helps a lot.
Does this make sense? and or the reason I need to lower my cadence is precisely the limited hip flexors?

Dave Tallo

More of a preliminary question: why are you interested in lengthening your stride?  Is it to address something you feel is deficient, or correct an injury or imbalance?  Or is it intended to become more economical a runner?  (I'm asking, because the question more commonly arises from the other side ... namely, "how do I increase my cadence?"  Which is what I see people commonly asking, as a means to improving their run economy.)    

If the reasoning is limited rom at hip flexors, I would think that a shorter stride+higher cadence would be more suitable.   But the bigger point I would push is which of these lets you run the fastest, longest, with least overall cost?  

One more generality: your height and weight?  I've come around to agree that for triathlon running there probably are certain run styles more suitable to different morphologies.  

Juan Vergara

Thanks for your questions Dave, all of which make me "rephrase" my own question. 
My objective (and question): beyond training "harder" than I have in the past, how can I run a faster IM marathon? Arbitrarily determined that stride length would make me faster (all else equal: HR, power).
That is why I began to experiment with stride a couple weeks ago. 
My height: 5,7
weight: Current 158 / Race weight 148

Coach Patrick

@Juan Vergara  There are two basic elements of run speed: cadence and stride length. More steps at current LENGTH or longer steps at current RATE.  Now that we/you have a Stryd, there appears to be other means of speed (run efficiency and the currently ambiguous Leg Spring Strength...I could be wrong on that, I'm up too late right now).

Increasing cadence is the "easiest" as it's so visible..and usually visceral. It feels funny and yo can have it on your watch. Schedule check ins every 5' on any run, and make 1 to 2 runs (short, easy) almost exclusively at that cadence. 

Stride length is harder as you can't tell until you get back home again...not to mention that stride length changes as the terrain you run on changes...which convolutes things. I attribute stride length to increased hip flexibility and leg strength (as you get fitter). Both are important REGARDLESS of your cadence focus and any serious runner should be focused on them.

The gray area remains the power metrics listed above...and I suspect the community will be diving into them soon enough....hope this helps!

~ Coach P

Dave Tallo

Thanks for clarifying, Juan, and Patrick, for identifying that there are some active discussions on the stryd tech and metrics.    I'm going old-school on my answer, but my belief has tended to be towards higher (90+) cadence, lower stride length running as being optimal for triathlon - I guess I came to this view via Daniels, and Bobby McGee, and it was reinforced with my own training expeience.  But I've taken a shellacking when trying to defend that stance on ST, and acknowledge that it isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.  Of course, after swallowing that, my thinking then came back to the higher-cadence running as most economical after watching the two-part 'stryders vs gazelles' piece by Todd at TT Bike fit (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJWPwVF30yo ) Although I don't entirely agree with him about the whys, I do agree there is an optimum for certain body types and distances  (which is why I asked about yours in my earlier post).    I still believe that there is much less muscular toll from high cadence / short stride work, and the recovery is quicker.    As for economy ... I think it would be facinating if there were some type of 'sweet spot' stride length / cadence methodology that is like the swim smooth stroke rate optimization.  Maybe there is by doing some 800m intervals - fully rested,  run, say, whatever set distance is equal to upper steady for 800, at 85 rpm, 88rpm, 91 rpm, 94 rpm (and so forth), and note HR, RPE and time for each.  Then look for at or where the significant disconnect occurs (or you see a big jump in RPE, or HR0, and work with that number. 

(Of course, I set that out as a curiosity piece, but I'm actually so convinced that 90 is "right" for me personally that I don't think I would go through the trouble.  Dogma and all!)

Al Truscott

Dave, Juan, and I aree all "about" the same size. I agree with the notion that shorter/quicker is more economical for IM marathon, and that 89-90 is the number that works best for me when I am not injured. If I have a defect somewhere in the lower limb chain, I;ve found that quicker cadence works better than slower to get me as fast as possible despite the injury.

Years ago there was a thread on this topic (cadence for IM marathon) in which I gave a very involved argument why quicker was better, based on the physics as a non-physicist understands it. I can't easily find that thread, but if/when I do, I'll post link here.

Got it! 

https://endurancenation.vanillacommunities.com/discussion/comment/127338#Comment_127338

Shaughn Simmons

Fantastic thread here.....should be memorialized.

So many smart observations/comments from the experts/veterans.

All I know is, as I get faster and improve my vDOT, my form is required to improve and my cadence sits right on top of 90....it just becomes basic physics for me, if I want to run faster, longer and efficiently maintain that, my form approximates more and more the keys highlighted above....

SS

Dave Tallo

Al - Ha!   I was coming back to this thread to say "do a search on an older post from Al on this ... I remember a good explanation of "why it just works" a few years ago."   There we go, then!    

Shaughn's comment is an interesting one (and is actually consistent with the points on ST I referred ) ... consistent with 'there isn't a form that gets you to running fast.   Running fast is, instead, what makes running fast.'  So the movement patterns, cadence, position of limbs in space and everything else are outcomes of a body that has intuited, over time, practice, and so on, the best way to move.  So, run fast, run a lot, and create a virtuous circle.  (although strides reportedly accelerate motor learning also)

Paul Curtin

Juan – what is your approach to changing your stride length; any drills like the ones in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvH5WZk0f90 

90 seems like a pretty good natural stride rate.  Could you bump it up to 93?  Your stride length will initially shorten, but would hopefully return to normal once your body adapted. 

One thing I've found from trying a quicker stride rate: the hip flexor muscles will vehemently object

Al Truscott

Although the thread I cited above is quite germane to this topic, HERE is the one I was actually remembering - or maybe I was just conflating the two, after 4+ years:

https://endurancenation.vanillacommunities.com/discussion/comment/105636#Comment_105636

A key quote from what I said back then: 

"...Running is simply a series of connected hops. Try this: hop up and down ten times [i.e., the effect of increasing stride length]. Then swing your leg back and forth ten times [the effect of increasing cadence]. Which makes you more tired? ... want to run faster? Increase your cadence; it's a lot easier than trying to increase your stride length.

Now, read that last sentance again. On race day, in an IM marathon, we are running slow. Our natural tendancy will be to run at a slow cadence. If we want to run faster on those "tired legs", and keep it up for 4 hours or more, we should focus FIRST on getting the cadence up to a racing rate of 92-95, and THEN on increasing stride length - just the opposite of what a runner is usally told.

And...try lighter shoes - it makes increasing cadence that much easier."

Coach Patrick

Great post only made GREATER by searching and finding old posts! No more Endurance Nation Groundhog Day!!!  

Marc Taylor

I think I just got faster following along with this discussion! I have a lot to learn ... in a lot of areas ... but it's drilling into topics like this one while readying for bed that make me so confident in what this team does on the daily!

Awesome stuff!
Marc