Man, we have some WICKED SMAHT people on this team!!! My total n=1 is that cadence is the _only_ way I can gain speed when fatigued whether in training or racing. I focus insanely on a high cadence at all speeds of my runs b/c I want to program that in. No way I would only run at my goal cadence (say 92) for just 2 x 1 mile of an hour run; that's too much wasted time! I also include strides at the end of most runs to keep the cadence up.
The challenge on race day is having the mental focus / acuity to stay on it when you body is dying and your stomach is shutting down and chicken little is yelling at you; but a footpod will help. I have found that running in newtons has helped me as I instantly get feedback when I overstride and heel strike. All n=1 of course...
I just put my money where my mouth is and bought a footpod to go with my cheapo Garmin 305 Forerunner. I _will_ miss counting to 94 every 4-5 minutes while on the treadmill, though. But a benefit will be no more manual entries on treadmill days into WKO+? And I'm already beginning to get my money's worth out of the Amazon Prime I signed up for last week.
I hope I won't be That Guy as well on race day, trying to keep my foot steps in sync with the little Garmin beep - I've only done one IM with my GPS on while racing, and I'm sure the extra 3 oz made a big difference.
Been following this thread, and the ideas have been great! I agree with Mike that the increasing stride length is much more difficult than changing cadence. The idea with increasing stride length ends up with people overstriding and moving their center of mass back, effectively slowing them down. In addition, that typically moves the footstrike back more towards the heel. Somehow, I also think that there's got to be more eccentric muscle contraction in there, too, which increases the stress and stretch on the muscle fibers, leading to more fatigue and pain. My guess is that increasing stride length for most people will result in a lot more time in the swing phase (in the air), which, I think, also slows you down.
Increasing the cadence is less taxing on the muscles, but the aerobic cost is going to be higher. Training yourself to have a higher cadence at your optimal stride length can be very tiring initially, but I think the return on that is huge in terms of more consistent pacing. Some of us have a bit of a choppy stride; I have no problems with keeping my footstrikes at 180+ even when I'm just running along, but it's the way I run and I'm only 5' 6". Years ago, I ran with a very good friend of mine who was 6' tall, but his cadence was much slower, around 160 footstrikes/minute. His goal was to get up to 180, but it was really hard for him to get there, and the aerobic cost was also quite high.
I've never tried to measure footstrikes when I'm running hard, such as tempo or interval training. I'm guessing that my cadence is significantly higher, and that my stride length is not significantly longer. Maybe that's something that those of you with footpods (Al?) can try and let use know the results.
I simply do not understand how you all feel that increasing cadence comes at a lower muscular energy expenditure than increasing stride length...there are far mor muscles involved/engage with levering you foot/knee up and returning it forward than in simply allowing your leg to naturally extend further..by releasing tension in your hips etc. ...the weight you are moving is the same your not pushing off any harder...your simply covering more ground throught the flight stage....Bill Rodgers was fond of saying when he was running his feet barely touched the ground...he flew from toe to toe...momentum /gravity is the force you are taking advantage of with a longer stride. (I'm not a physicist or running doctor so I could be wrong here...I'm just a layman athlete)
I really believe that most people have incoomplete shortened strides due to lack of flexibilty, unstable core etc. (and mistaken belief that to run fastest you need to churn your legs faster...just like the belief that to swim faster you have to churn your arms faster)
Coach P - my thought is that what you are rightly focused on is primarily maintaining cadence...evenly expending energy and simply not slowing down.
I don't think you're understanding the physics of it. To run most efficiently your foot needs to land directly under your center of gravity. So in order to maintain that foot strike position with a longer stride you need to push off with more force and cover more ground in the air before your front foot contacts the ground again. Simply extending your foot farther in front ends up putting in in front of your center of mass which causes heel striking and deceleration as well as a momentary "dead spot" while your body moves over that front foot before you can begin the pus-off again. So you either have increased force with every stride (which is the case with naturally increasing stride length as speed increases) or wasted energy in the form of deceleration and a pause in your stride. So despite the apparent marginal energy cost that you think is involved with a longer stride it's simply less efficient. A shorter quicker stride reduces the force required for each step and you essentially save more than it costs to turn over quicker. I'm nt sure how to explain it any better but Ken Mierke does a really good job in his book - Evolution Running.
Joe, here's a thought experiment. Take two runners, with identical cadences and stride lengths. Now, ask one of them to increase their stride length, solely by letting their leg travel back further, without impacting the ground harder, and without impacting cadence.
What's the only way to achieve this outcome? For the foot to stay in contact with the ground longer, yes?
If so, two problems. One, studies consistently show that faster running is associated with shorter ground contact times. Two, same force production with longer dwell time means more work (work = force * time).
Stride length is ideally measured from ground contact to ground contact, and has everything to do with how far you travel with both feet in the air. Very little to nothing to do with how far behind you your foot travels. Take a look at Ryan Hall's stride at this link
His foot is already starting to come off the ground, which means that it is no longer contributing to forward propulsion. The reason why he has such a strong kick behind him (as in pic here http://bostonmarathon.runnersworld.com/2010/04/ryan-hall-runs-free-and-checks-his-watch.html) is because of the force with which he hit the ground. It's like the follow through of a golf swing. It has absolutely nothing to do with where the golf ball goes (you already hit the ball), but if you hit the ball right, it's hard not to follow-through right. The long swing also has the benefit of swinging the foot up towards the buttocks (flexing the knee), thus reducing the lever arm of the forward swing of the leg, making it easier.
Don't take this the wrong way. As I said in my previous post, your analysis is spot on for someone who has most of their stride happen in front of them. learning how to get your run stride to happen underneath you is free speed, and will often feel like "lengthening out your stride behind you". In fact, that may even be a verbal cue that some coaches use to help reinforce it. It's just not what's happening, and can become limiting after you've developed good technique, if you were to go about trying to get faster by pushing along the ground further behind you. You get faster by hitting the ground harder, and springing further forward with both feet off the ground. That's why plyo helps improve well-trained runners, because running is effectively one long plyo workout when done properly.
I wish I had something good to share on this because I have thought about it a TON and tried a ton of different things.
I spent about 3 years working on raising my cadence. As it went form 80 to 90 I got significantly faster (but I lost weight at the same time as well). After that it keep raising and I got to a point were my EP was at about 93, HMP was around 95, and I was at 97+ for 400s and shorter. It could be totally irreverent but I hit a plateau and stopped improving.
I decided to start to work on my stride length and form and after about 4 months and my cadence dropped by about 2 across the board, but I got faster at all paces at the same HR/PE.
This year I've been doing core/plyo/running specific functional strength work for the last 4 months and my cadence as dropped another 1-2 across all paces. My EP is now about 89, HMPish about 91, and I'm more like 94 for the fast stuff. Once again, I'm going faster with lower HR/PE. However, my foot strike is noticeably more forceful and sometimes I even feel more like I'm trying to bound up a mountain then actually running, which concerns me a little because I feel like it is going to beat up my body more. So far so good though and no issues at all.
In other words, my experience has definitely been that there is a sweet spot and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is for me. To Al's point, if I speed my cadence up, I can hold my form and a pretty good pace for longer when I'm fatigued. However, I can actually run faster with a lower HR/PE, with a lower cadence and more forceful/longer stride.
Since all of this happened over the last 5 years, many other variables changes as well, so it would be hard to draw any real conclusions from this as it could have been other changes that made caused the improvements.
There's always ging to be a limit to what you can get out of any one parameter. Once you get there you'll have to make progress in other areas to continue improving overall. For you it sounds like you found your upper limit on cadence and therefore had to develop more power in your push-off to increase the amount of ground you cover with each stride. I think the issues we're discussing that applies to most people though is that they haven't fully developed their potential with a more efficient dcadence yet and that is a slightly less costly route in terms of energy.
A lot of this supports why I'll continue to do bricks, and will respectfully disagree that there is no 'magic triathlon run mojo' that you gain from practicing running off the bike. For a good long course triathlon run, keep form (of which cadence is a part). To keep form, practice form at all times, and particularly when you are dog-tired from riding 112 (or a hard Tuesday or Sunday).
True but frok that perspective very short transition runs serve the purpose. 10-15min off the bike focused on form and cadence is plenty. Anythin longer doesn't do much and doesn't help true running fitness.
very interesting discussion. I have been running with a footpod for the last 6 weeks. before that i wasn't sure what my run cadence was. What i have found is that my cadence is always between 91 and 98. This was a surprise to me, even my very easy runs are usually around 91 (last easy run was 91 averaging 8:17/mile). When i am running hard it goes up to 96-98. My last hard run was a solo 13.1 - i maintained an average cadence of 96 (averaging 6:56/mile) over varied and often hilly terrain. When doing mile repeats, i am consistently between 96-98 at a ~5:50/mile.
Loving this thread. I've been working on increasing my turn over as well and find that I can hit the magic 90-92 + easily on the treadmill but when I get outside where there is no belt assistance my cadence drops right away to the 85-87 range. I'm new to running and learning how to run has been real work for me. In trying to do the workouts as written many times I can hit the pacing numbers when I return to my slower cadence but run out of gas when I try to do them with a higher turnover. This I know is just fitness and it will come but it can be somewhat frustrating. I really like this video of how he explains the concepts that have been mentioned here so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSIDRHUWlVo&feature=youtu.be
How did you do that analysis? I wanted to do something similar, but all my run cadence data is spread over many WKO/TPX files. TP/WKO doesn't seem to allow that type of graph... unless I'm missing something.
A couple notes. One thing I took from the data for IM racing in particular is that there is really a demonstrable penalty for sagging off into the dreaded trudge. If you can manage to stay in the "running" cadence area, it will keep you going. The defined breaks (like run-walking) also seem to make more sense than slipping too far towards low cadence running. But here I am just speculating based on my limited and not-all-that-successful IM runs.
@Steve - I exported my data to another graphing program. I suppose you could probably use excel, but I don't like the graphs it comes up with so I use Kaleidagraph, but the key is probably that you have to export the data if you can't get the user-defined X-Y plot you want. In order to get it color coded, I sorted all the data (around 60,000 points if I recall) into order by velocity and then just plotted the data in those relevant zones in different colors. What's a little unfair about the plot is it doesn't convey the density of points well. However, the fits are done with the full density of points, so the outliers don't affect it as much as you might think.
True but frok that perspective very short transition runs serve the purpose. 10-15min off the bike focused on form and cadence is plenty. Anythin longer doesn't do much and doesn't help true running fitness.
I'm torn on this. Joel ... I hear you, and I know I'm on shaky ground: I've read the ST responses, the EN posts, and acknowledge there's agreement that there isn't a magic difference in running that occurs when it's off the bike versus on fresh legs. Running is running. But I can't get past the fact that there are individual differences in ability (or results) at mile 18-> finish of an IM marathon that have to come from somewhere. Agreed, as well, that the surest way to improve the likelihood of not fading is a well-executed, conservative bike and miles 1-17 of a run. But even after correcting for that, some people are just able to slow down less in those miles than others. Okay … a few can just suffer more than others. Overall run fitness – the kind that comes from adaptations through short stuff, fast stuff, years of running, genetics, or whataver, might account for some difference, but it's not consistent: there are a number of supa' fast runners who, even after great race execution, are doing the shuffle at mile 18 -> home. Conversely, there are a number of not-supa' fast runners ticking away at mile 18-> home with no pace erosion. What I'm getting at is there is something that sets the person not slowing down and the shuffler apart, that the 'something' probably has a lot to do with form, with cadence, and with using mechanics instead of muscle, and that this can be trained and learned by practicing keeping form when bagged. When I am running a long ride / 40' brick run – which is my weekend go-to session through the season – the run, frankly, mentally sucks, but I'm working as hard as I can to keep my footstrike at 30 taps ever 20 seconds and not drop pace, no matter what. Ditto the end of my Tues brick run, and the last 20-30 mins of my Thursday long run. I think this is one of the biggest factors in why I am able to run beyond my abilities /vdot in a long race.
On the matter of keeping cadence in a late race once you've practiced it again and again, it's a virtuous circle: once mile 18 hits, you're continuing to use gravity, elasticity, and other forces, and not muscles, at a time when your muscles are at their most fatigued (McGee characterizes this 'ideal mix' as 6 parts mechanical, 1 part muscular). Once that form drops, you move from the low-cost running to high-cost running, when you can afford it the least. McGee's blog also mentions that as a part of his run mechanics coaching with Joanna Zieger (gotta double check this … I think it was her), she augmented her regular run form coaching by having him meet her when she was mid-run in a long brick to observe and remedy form faults when she was 'tired.' I think it might have the same underpinnings to what I'm trying to get at.
@ William - since you started this thread & you're our resident professor - i'm wondering if height/leg length factors into the "ideal cadence" at all - i'm on the taller side - 73" with 34/35 inseam - seems to me that my most efficient cadence might be different than a shorter (66") peep @ equal speed. this is assuming the ideal cadence corresponds the most efficient angular leg movement between front/back of cycle - for example @ cadence of 90 a tall guy legs might cover 30 degrees from foot strike to back of stroke (where it begins to return forward) and a short guy might cover 40 degrees - if the 40 deg is more "energy" efficient would it be reasonable to think a person would drift to their most efficient motion and the cadence will "be what it is"
on a secondary subject - alot of earlier posts talk about the vDot compression for the fast guys - any thoughts about the other end - us slow guys - i'm vDot 41 and my Z1=10:00 & Z2= 8:30 Z3=8:15 - @ Z2/Z3 i find the 88 cadence reasonable but @ Z1 it seems downright awkward - like a shuffle and i drift back to 80 ish
Good points, Dave. My n=1 set of experiences and beliefs overlap with your thoughts substantially (strange as that might sound given my support of the no brick advice). Much of the 'keeping good form when tired' resides between the ears, and therefore practicing focus when the going gets tough probably helps. Any opportunity to practice your focus on good form is probably worthwhile.
I'd suggest that an 'intellectual brick', such as you describe, does have merit. Simply slogging through the miles, however, is only further reinforcing bad habits, at low speeds which neither make a runner faster or more durable.
Given that, I'm not certain what the prime limiter is in the "fill the right" thought process on the run. If it's just fitness, then presumably you could address it with more long runs including MP intervals (like the thursday run), or you could work on raising the left and figure that the right will come along for the ride. As to whether brick runs after long bikes do a better job than more running at other times on fresher legs of "filling the right", I'm still skeptical of.
So, the question in my mind isn't "do bricks after long runs have merit?" Rather, is that the best possible use of an athlete's limited number of miles they can put in in a week? Good food for thought all around.
@ Dave - I've got no science behind this, but over the years, I'm coming to the conclusion that the ROI of a brick, mentally, physically, whatever-ly, starts to drop off precipitously after the first 20-30 minutes. As you know, I take great pride in my ability to not slow down in the last 90 minutes of an IM marathon, and I think the bricks I do help with that. They help by drilling in the cadence thing, and getting me set mentally to go off the bike. One of those a week is enough for me, after a hard OR long bike. But what I think helps the most on race day among our WKOs is the long runs we do in the final 12 weeks. Doing HMP/TP intervals, with easy pace, then trying to finish for 20-30 minutes @ MP for a 110-135 minute run- that's what really builds my mental and physical six-pack for not slowing down on race day. In addition to being ignorant of what this "suffering" thing is.
Guys - I'm late to this thread, but 2x what Al said. One brick/week for 20-30 minutes is enough for me. I completely agree about the value of the long run with the intervals. Builds as much mental strength and confidence as it does physical strength. While I've only started and finished one IM, I KNOW that the long runs in the last 12 weeks of training gave me the ability to run the last 10k as my fastest spilt. And it sure felt good passing lots of people in those last 6 miles. Made the pain almost sweet. Now I just gotta get a better bike split so I don't have so many in front of me @ the start of the run.
Interesting observation on the brick run discussion today. I decided to jump into my first DU of the season having not run a single step off the bike since early Sept at Vegas. I was also on a new tri bike that I spent maybe 20min on yesterday tweaking the fit. It was a short event (5k, 23mile, 5k) and I run 24 miles on Friday so I wasn't expecting top performance. I took the first 5k steady (18:32) , rode .94 IF on the bike and then put down an even 18:38 split on the second run. The second run was definitely a bit tougher but nothing different from any other race in the past despite 6 months of no running off the bike. What I have been doing is running a lot and hitting most of the OS bike workouts. So I'm not arguing against all run off the bike training, just reiterating the opinion that it isn't as critical as some might preach provided you are getting good run training in. From here on out I'm probably going with 10-15min off the bike 1-2X per week and a few longer runs off the bike at particular points in my training more for race rehearsal purposes.
Also, on the second run I made a point of focusing on my turn over to keep it quick and light. After the initial 2-3min out of T2 I settled in and felt relatively good averaging 204 steps/min @ 6:00/mile pace on a rolling course.
I bought a small Garmin cadence pod, and used it on a brick for the first time today. As expected, for the first five minutes, it beeped constantly (I have it set to beep below 88). Confirming my suspicion that, for me at least, learning how to get into a good cadence right out of the box, without going too fast, is a skill which periodic bricks will probably help me with.
I'm still having trouble getting it to work with a treadmill - calibration, and setting the thing for indoors are a hurdle for me. By the time I get that wired, I'll be doing all my runs outdoors.
x2 what Al said...with my footpod on now, it's easy for me to drop below 88rpms....but when I stick 90 I am just flying along at minimal (perceived) effort. Put up 13.1 in 1:26:18 on Sunday after my HOH 79 mile bike ride and it was a veritable walk in the park. It's going to be my big focus for IMTX this year...
My single focus late in the run when things really start to get tough is to keep my stride quick and light. That reduces the force required for each step and also shortens your stride to help avoid heel-striking and the associated braking with every step.
This year I've been doing core/plyo/running specific functional strength work for the last 4 months...
What is your routine here? I found that doing a short series of running drills 2X per week had a significant effect on my running economy so I'm starting that up again this season. I've been telling myself that I'll add in some plyo work as well but haven't put together the moves yet. I'm thinking box jumps, squat jumps, and bounding.
I believe that incline strides are very effective in this regards...uphill requires quick turnover...also minimal impact. I have been attempting unsuccessfully to do them regularly.
Was reading an interesting article tid-bit that reminded me of this discussion and made me come back to it....as you may recall I was a strong proponent of improving stride length v cadence as a means to improve speed and economy. (I also noted that this was due to my own personal needs...but believed it applied generally)...
In Runnning Times magazine this month...discussing particularly Masters running (my AG)...a key strategy was maintining stride...they noted that many studies over the past 2 decades have reached the same conclusioin...that as we age stride rate remains about the same (ie. we each have our own internal metronome that works/optimizes itself)....but that stride length decreases...significantly...there comment being that by the time we are 70 stride length has decreased by up to 40%...which means that in order to run the same 6:00 mile we ran at 30 would require almost 2x as many strides...the answer is not to try an run 2x as many strides....it is to do drills/running that compensate for the shortened stride.
The shorter stride is due to a loss of power...and they point to 2 culprits....1.) flexibility - decreased range of motion of hips and knees ...2.) workouts that fail to produce enough power to generate the longer/fluid stride.
recommendations are flexibility stuff of course (Yoga)...but also power producing workouts...(Form Drills - Bounding etc.) ..HILL REPEATS ..both up and downhill.....
The shorter stride is due to a loss of power...and they point to 2 culprits....1.) flexibility - decreased range of motion of hips and knees ...2.) workouts that fail to produce enough power to generate the longer/fluid stride.
Speaking from the middle of the long decline (in power) ... the two prescriptions are necessary, but not sufficient. There are actually two other factors which I can do nothing about. First, testosterone reduction limits the strength I have available to bound farther with each step. I expect LeBron James will not be able to dunk as easily when he is 63 as when he was 23. And, my maximum heart rate will not get high enough to supply the oxygen needed to power my running. Despite a resting rate of 38 indicating a very healthy, huge and efficient heart, I can not raise my maximum HR even as high as 160 anymore (ten years ago, it was 167). All the stretching (which I do daily) and short hard sprints (which I do 1-2 x a week) aren't going to overcome those two factors, which is why I run slower now at both top speed and IM pace than I did 5 years ago.
Expecting to be able to develop a longer stride (once you have arrived at optimum fitness) after age 40 is like expecting to be able to see up close without bifocals.
Comments
The challenge on race day is having the mental focus / acuity to stay on it when you body is dying and your stomach is shutting down and chicken little is yelling at you; but a footpod will help. I have found that running in newtons has helped me as I instantly get feedback when I overstride and heel strike. All n=1 of course...
I just put my money where my mouth is and bought a footpod to go with my cheapo Garmin 305 Forerunner. I _will_ miss counting to 94 every 4-5 minutes while on the treadmill, though. But a benefit will be no more manual entries on treadmill days into WKO+? And I'm already beginning to get my money's worth out of the Amazon Prime I signed up for last week.
I hope I won't be That Guy as well on race day, trying to keep my foot steps in sync with the little Garmin beep - I've only done one IM with my GPS on while racing, and I'm sure the extra 3 oz made a big difference.
Increasing the cadence is less taxing on the muscles, but the aerobic cost is going to be higher. Training yourself to have a higher cadence at your optimal stride length can be very tiring initially, but I think the return on that is huge in terms of more consistent pacing. Some of us have a bit of a choppy stride; I have no problems with keeping my footstrikes at 180+ even when I'm just running along, but it's the way I run and I'm only 5' 6". Years ago, I ran with a very good friend of mine who was 6' tall, but his cadence was much slower, around 160 footstrikes/minute. His goal was to get up to 180, but it was really hard for him to get there, and the aerobic cost was also quite high.
I've never tried to measure footstrikes when I'm running hard, such as tempo or interval training. I'm guessing that my cadence is significantly higher, and that my stride length is not significantly longer. Maybe that's something that those of you with footpods (Al?) can try and let use know the results.
I simply do not understand how you all feel that increasing cadence comes at a lower muscular energy expenditure than increasing stride length...there are far mor muscles involved/engage with levering you foot/knee up and returning it forward than in simply allowing your leg to naturally extend further..by releasing tension in your hips etc. ...the weight you are moving is the same your not pushing off any harder...your simply covering more ground throught the flight stage....Bill Rodgers was fond of saying when he was running his feet barely touched the ground...he flew from toe to toe...momentum /gravity is the force you are taking advantage of with a longer stride. (I'm not a physicist or running doctor so I could be wrong here...I'm just a layman athlete)
I really believe that most people have incoomplete shortened strides due to lack of flexibilty, unstable core etc. (and mistaken belief that to run fastest you need to churn your legs faster...just like the belief that to swim faster you have to churn your arms faster)
Coach P - my thought is that what you are rightly focused on is primarily maintaining cadence...evenly expending energy and simply not slowing down.
http://www.evolutionrunning.com/
What's the only way to achieve this outcome? For the foot to stay in contact with the ground longer, yes?
If so, two problems. One, studies consistently show that faster running is associated with shorter ground contact times. Two, same force production with longer dwell time means more work (work = force * time).
Stride length is ideally measured from ground contact to ground contact, and has everything to do with how far you travel with both feet in the air. Very little to nothing to do with how far behind you your foot travels. Take a look at Ryan Hall's stride at this link
http://news.runtowin.com/2009/05/27/help-ryan-hall-decide-where-to-race-this-autumn.html
His foot is already starting to come off the ground, which means that it is no longer contributing to forward propulsion. The reason why he has such a strong kick behind him (as in pic here http://bostonmarathon.runnersworld.com/2010/04/ryan-hall-runs-free-and-checks-his-watch.html) is because of the force with which he hit the ground. It's like the follow through of a golf swing. It has absolutely nothing to do with where the golf ball goes (you already hit the ball), but if you hit the ball right, it's hard not to follow-through right. The long swing also has the benefit of swinging the foot up towards the buttocks (flexing the knee), thus reducing the lever arm of the forward swing of the leg, making it easier.
Don't take this the wrong way. As I said in my previous post, your analysis is spot on for someone who has most of their stride happen in front of them. learning how to get your run stride to happen underneath you is free speed, and will often feel like "lengthening out your stride behind you". In fact, that may even be a verbal cue that some coaches use to help reinforce it. It's just not what's happening, and can become limiting after you've developed good technique, if you were to go about trying to get faster by pushing along the ground further behind you. You get faster by hitting the ground harder, and springing further forward with both feet off the ground. That's why plyo helps improve well-trained runners, because running is effectively one long plyo workout when done properly.
I spent about 3 years working on raising my cadence. As it went form 80 to 90 I got significantly faster (but I lost weight at the same time as well). After that it keep raising and I got to a point were my EP was at about 93, HMP was around 95, and I was at 97+ for 400s and shorter. It could be totally irreverent but I hit a plateau and stopped improving.
I decided to start to work on my stride length and form and after about 4 months and my cadence dropped by about 2 across the board, but I got faster at all paces at the same HR/PE.
This year I've been doing core/plyo/running specific functional strength work for the last 4 months and my cadence as dropped another 1-2 across all paces. My EP is now about 89, HMPish about 91, and I'm more like 94 for the fast stuff. Once again, I'm going faster with lower HR/PE. However, my foot strike is noticeably more forceful and sometimes I even feel more like I'm trying to bound up a mountain then actually running, which concerns me a little because I feel like it is going to beat up my body more. So far so good though and no issues at all.
In other words, my experience has definitely been that there is a sweet spot and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is for me. To Al's point, if I speed my cadence up, I can hold my form and a pretty good pace for longer when I'm fatigued. However, I can actually run faster with a lower HR/PE, with a lower cadence and more forceful/longer stride.
Since all of this happened over the last 5 years, many other variables changes as well, so it would be hard to draw any real conclusions from this as it could have been other changes that made caused the improvements.
I really like this video of how he explains the concepts that have been mentioned here so far.
How did you do that analysis? I wanted to do something similar, but all my run cadence data is spread over many WKO/TPX files. TP/WKO doesn't seem to allow that type of graph... unless I'm missing something.
@Steve - I exported my data to another graphing program. I suppose you could probably use excel, but I don't like the graphs it comes up with so I use Kaleidagraph, but the key is probably that you have to export the data if you can't get the user-defined X-Y plot you want. In order to get it color coded, I sorted all the data (around 60,000 points if I recall) into order by velocity and then just plotted the data in those relevant zones in different colors. What's a little unfair about the plot is it doesn't convey the density of points well. However, the fits are done with the full density of points, so the outliers don't affect it as much as you might think.
on a secondary subject - alot of earlier posts talk about the vDot compression for the fast guys - any thoughts about the other end - us slow guys - i'm vDot 41 and my Z1=10:00 & Z2= 8:30 Z3=8:15 - @ Z2/Z3 i find the 88 cadence reasonable but @ Z1 it seems downright awkward - like a shuffle and i drift back to 80 ish
I'd suggest that an 'intellectual brick', such as you describe, does have merit. Simply slogging through the miles, however, is only further reinforcing bad habits, at low speeds which neither make a runner faster or more durable.
Given that, I'm not certain what the prime limiter is in the "fill the right" thought process on the run. If it's just fitness, then presumably you could address it with more long runs including MP intervals (like the thursday run), or you could work on raising the left and figure that the right will come along for the ride. As to whether brick runs after long bikes do a better job than more running at other times on fresher legs of "filling the right", I'm still skeptical of.
So, the question in my mind isn't "do bricks after long runs have merit?" Rather, is that the best possible use of an athlete's limited number of miles they can put in in a week? Good food for thought all around.
@ Dave - I've got no science behind this, but over the years, I'm coming to the conclusion that the ROI of a brick, mentally, physically, whatever-ly, starts to drop off precipitously after the first 20-30 minutes. As you know, I take great pride in my ability to not slow down in the last 90 minutes of an IM marathon, and I think the bricks I do help with that. They help by drilling in the cadence thing, and getting me set mentally to go off the bike. One of those a week is enough for me, after a hard OR long bike. But what I think helps the most on race day among our WKOs is the long runs we do in the final 12 weeks. Doing HMP/TP intervals, with easy pace, then trying to finish for 20-30 minutes @ MP for a 110-135 minute run- that's what really builds my mental and physical six-pack for not slowing down on race day. In addition to being ignorant of what this "suffering" thing is.
Guys - I'm late to this thread, but 2x what Al said. One brick/week for 20-30 minutes is enough for me. I completely agree about the value of the long run with the intervals. Builds as much mental strength and confidence as it does physical strength. While I've only started and finished one IM, I KNOW that the long runs in the last 12 weeks of training gave me the ability to run the last 10k as my fastest spilt. And it sure felt good passing lots of people in those last 6 miles. Made the pain almost sweet. Now I just gotta get a better bike split so I don't have so many in front of me @ the start of the run.
I bought a small Garmin cadence pod, and used it on a brick for the first time today. As expected, for the first five minutes, it beeped constantly (I have it set to beep below 88). Confirming my suspicion that, for me at least, learning how to get into a good cadence right out of the box, without going too fast, is a skill which periodic bricks will probably help me with.
I'm still having trouble getting it to work with a treadmill - calibration, and setting the thing for indoors are a hurdle for me. By the time I get that wired, I'll be doing all my runs outdoors.
What is your routine here? I found that doing a short series of running drills 2X per week had a significant effect on my running economy so I'm starting that up again this season. I've been telling myself that I'll add in some plyo work as well but haven't put together the moves yet. I'm thinking box jumps, squat jumps, and bounding.
I believe that incline strides are very effective in this regards...uphill requires quick turnover...also minimal impact. I have been attempting unsuccessfully to do them regularly.
Was reading an interesting article tid-bit that reminded me of this discussion and made me come back to it....as you may recall I was a strong proponent of improving stride length v cadence as a means to improve speed and economy. (I also noted that this was due to my own personal needs...but believed it applied generally)...
In Runnning Times magazine this month...discussing particularly Masters running (my AG)...a key strategy was maintining stride...they noted that many studies over the past 2 decades have reached the same conclusioin...that as we age stride rate remains about the same (ie. we each have our own internal metronome that works/optimizes itself)....but that stride length decreases...significantly...there comment being that by the time we are 70 stride length has decreased by up to 40%...which means that in order to run the same 6:00 mile we ran at 30 would require almost 2x as many strides...the answer is not to try an run 2x as many strides....it is to do drills/running that compensate for the shortened stride.
The shorter stride is due to a loss of power...and they point to 2 culprits....1.) flexibility - decreased range of motion of hips and knees ...2.) workouts that fail to produce enough power to generate the longer/fluid stride.
recommendations are flexibility stuff of course (Yoga)...but also power producing workouts...(Form Drills - Bounding etc.) ..HILL REPEATS ..both up and downhill.....
POWER = WORK = POWER...
Speaking from the middle of the long decline (in power) ... the two prescriptions are necessary, but not sufficient. There are actually two other factors which I can do nothing about. First, testosterone reduction limits the strength I have available to bound farther with each step. I expect LeBron James will not be able to dunk as easily when he is 63 as when he was 23. And, my maximum heart rate will not get high enough to supply the oxygen needed to power my running. Despite a resting rate of 38 indicating a very healthy, huge and efficient heart, I can not raise my maximum HR even as high as 160 anymore (ten years ago, it was 167). All the stretching (which I do daily) and short hard sprints (which I do 1-2 x a week) aren't going to overcome those two factors, which is why I run slower now at both top speed and IM pace than I did 5 years ago.
Expecting to be able to develop a longer stride (once you have arrived at optimum fitness) after age 40 is like expecting to be able to see up close without bifocals.