Run Turnover Rate

(Chris Maginn) said:

I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low (may
160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on increasing
this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site that
has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.

Just curious... If your coach suggested it can't he/she give you an indepth answer on why
he/she suggested it? Also please define expert as I would not want to give my opinion if not
qualified.

~Matt

Chris Maginn said:

I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low (may
160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on increasing
this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site that
has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.

My only expertise is from running for 15-16 years but generally a faster turnover rate is better
because at a given speed the momentary impact on each footfall is less. The total impact on the
system from foot to hip may be the same per mile but by breaking it up into smaller doses your body
will be happier. My experience is that my stride is a lot shorter and faster at a given pace than it
was 10-15 years ago. Not because I've studied the wisdom of the greats but just because it hurts a
hell of a lot less and the old body just can't take "opening it up" like it used to. I can't tell
you when the law of diminishing returns kicks in on cadence but in general picking up the cadence a
bit is more likely to help you than hurt you, even if it's just your longevity as a runner.

JJ

Chris Maginn said:

I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low (may
160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on increasing
this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site that
has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.

Not sure what you mean by in-depth discussion, but you might google rec.running for "180" or cadence
and you'll find several (many?) threads including one on "Gordon Pirie..." over the weekend. The
discussions are usually associated with form and running "softly" and/or initial landing more toward
mid-to fore-foot. Sometimes there's additional references.

Short version of these discussions (by runners, not necessarily experts) is that many (but not all)
experienced runners tend to run with cadence of *around* 180 or so. Fast people (esp. world class)
tend to have more rapid turnover - over 200 in sprints. One benefit of 180 vs say, 160 is that it
tends to result in a shorter stride initially, landing more toward fore / mid-foot and makes running
"softer" on the foot / legs - potentially reducing injuries, *IF* introduced gradually. Potentially
resulting in injury if done too rapidly. Not sure if it's different on the tri scene.

Google web search on "run cadence 180" turns up some pages also.

pponline.co.uk0142.htmOpen ↗ under "other improvements"

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

"Chris Maginn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site

that has an indepth discussion?

Sack you coach and forget about this trivia. Just run.

Roger.

In article said:

My only expertise is from running for 15-16 years but generally a faster turnover rate is better
because at a given speed the momentary impact on each footfall is less. The total impact on the
system from foot to hip may be the same per mile but by breaking it up into smaller doses your
body will be happier.

Just like it's a lot easier on the body to jump down 1 foot 1000 times than 1000 feet one time :-)

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

In article said:

Short version of these discussions (by runners, not necessarily experts) is that many (but not
all) experienced runners tend to run with cadence of *around* 180 or so.

Yep. This leaves open the question of whether there is a causal relationship -- but it does make it
pretty clear that if you don't have close to 180 strides per minute stride rate, you're not even
going to be a fast club runner (let alone an elite)

Quoted message said:

Fast people (esp. world class) tend to have more rapid turnover

From what I've read (e.g. Daniels), it's still about 180/min in distances less than a mile for
elites, though as you point out, it increases a lot in shorter distances.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Uh, well Matt I've actually gotten some feedback from my coach...who I do trust a great deal. I was
simply looking for additional information on this out of curiosity as I haven't really been able to
locate much written on the subject.

My coach's suggestion came from his training, years of running, feedback from other runners etc.
Idea being that a higher cadence keeps you from over striding, less injury due to lighter impact.
Again, this is based on experience.

MJuric wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just curious... If your coach suggested it can't he/she give you an indepth answer on why
he/she suggested it? Also please define expert as I would not want to give my opinion if not
qualified.

~Matt

apusapus said:

"Chris Maginn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site

that has an indepth discussion?

Sack you coach and forget about this trivia. Just run.

FWIW, I experimented with my own optimal cadence on the treadmill. Just set the speed to race pace,
and then try to find the cadence that produces the lowest heart rate.

Crude, yes. But it did seem to work for me (I run very little due to knee issues, but do OK
in races).

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

A 180 turnover in running is the same as a cadence of 90 in cycling. This as been found to be a
typical cadence of racing cyclists. A search of the web on the physiology of cycling will yield many
interesting articles. The gist being that it is something to do with how muscle groups are recruited
at race pace efforts. My guess is the same might apply to running.

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Chris Maginn) said:

I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low
(may 160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on
increasing this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a
site that has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.

Just curious... If your coach suggested it can't he/she give you an indepth answer on why he/she
suggested it? Also please define expert as I would not want to give my opinion if not qualified.

~Matt

Harold Buck said:

In article said:

My only expertise is from running for 15-16 years but generally a faster turnover rate is better
because at a given speed the momentary impact on each footfall is less. The total impact on the
system from foot to hip may be the same per mile but by breaking it up into smaller doses your
body will be happier.

Just like it's a lot easier on the body to jump down 1 foot 1000 times than 1000 feet one time :-)

Speaking from experinace?

~Matt

Quoted message said:

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

(Chris Maginn) said:

Uh, well Matt I've actually gotten some feedback from my coach...who I do trust a great deal. I was
simply looking for additional information on this out of curiosity as I haven't really been able to
locate much written on the subject.

My coach's suggestion came from his training, years of running, feedback from other runners etc.
Idea being that a higher cadence keeps you from over striding, less injury due to lighter impact.
Again, this is based on experience.

I'm far from what I would consider an expert but... I would agree with both your coach and
other posts on the subject. Higher cadence, generally accepted 180'ish, is more effecient,
easier on the body etc. I spent several months moving my cadence from 165'ish to 180'ish
when I first started running. I found that most of the faster runners in our area not only
had a higher turnover but also landed more mid to front foot. A higher turnover promotes
such a footfall. I also found that many of my knee "aches" went away if I ran at a higher
cadence. As far as papers, thread etc... As already suggested do an archive search on R.R.
Several debates have been waged over the subject. I'm sure some googling on the net would
probably turn up something also. If not try searching sites like Slowtwich.com or
pponline.co.ukpponline.co.ukOpen ↗

~Matt

Quoted message said:

MJuric wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just curious... If your coach suggested it can't he/she give you an indepth answer on why
he/she suggested it? Also please define expert as I would not want to give my opinion if not
qualified.

~Matt

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

apusapus said:

"Chris Maginn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site

that has an indepth discussion?

(Strictly armchair speculation)

From cycling I know that you must train yourself at a higher spin rate to take advantage of the
efficiency. In cycling it is not overstriding obviously, but you are using a lower torque, a lower
force on the leg, which makes you more efficient in some longer events. Also, it appears beneficial
in fast accelerations and on hills since you use a lower gear to gain leverage. Cyclists often train
at more than 90 rpm.

I have found that the extra pedal cadence can take you over short hills without shifting or losing
speed, probably because of the angular momentum reserve?

On the treadmill you probably found that cadence increases with running speed. It follows that
running faster will increase cadence to match that of elites. Would you rely solely on increased
cadence to minimize overstriding? Increased cadence uses the calf more, so you may want to gradually
increase the load to allow the leg to adapt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sack you coach and forget about this trivia. Just run.

FWIW, I experimented with my own optimal cadence on the treadmill. Just set the speed to race
pace, and then try to find the cadence that produces the lowest heart rate.

Crude, yes. But it did seem to work for me (I run very little due to knee issues, but do OK
in races).

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I found that most of the faster runners in our area not only had a higher

turnover

Well, duh: they were running faster as well.

Quoted message said:

but also landed more mid to front foot.

This is not true in general, i.e., there is no association between where one lands on the foot and
how fast one can run.

Andy Coggan

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I found that most of the faster runners in our area not only had a

higher

Quoted message said:

turnover

Well, duh: they were running faster as well.

Quoted message said:

but also landed more mid to front foot.

This is not true in general, i.e., there is no association between where

one

Quoted message said:

lands on the foot and how fast one can run.

Andy Coggan

I would have to disagree, unless I am missing the point altogether. Try sprinting while landing on
your toes and then try sprinting landing on your heels. I can bet which one would be faster. Mark

Andy Coggan said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I found that most of the faster runners in our area not only had a higher

turnover

Well, duh: they were running faster as well.

Not sure why duh... Turn over rate is measured in steps per minute. It is most definately possible
to run slow or fast with the same rate of turn over. A slow runner can have a high turn over rate,
small steps and be passed by a fast runner with a slow turn over rate, large steps. Matter of fact
how I worked on changing my cadence was normally during cool downs and warm ups when I was running
slow. I simply concentrated on taking smaller steps and "quickening" the step. Eventually I did this
rate naturally and incorporated it into my normal running. Didn't make me fast, but it did eleviate
alot of aches and pains as well appeared to increase my endurance and speed slightly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but also landed more mid to front foot.

This is not true in general, i.e., there is no association between where one lands on the foot and
how fast one can run.

It has been documented that faster, sprinters, runners have a higher turn over rate than
distance runners, on average. I, believe it has also been documented that many/most elite
distance runners have a fairly high cadence as well. Although I agree that speed is not
directly linked to cadence, I.E. it is possible to run fast with a 165'ish cadence vs a
180'ish cadence, I also suspect that this is the exception not the rule. Of course this is
simply coming from memory of what I've read in various articles etc as I haven't looked up
any studies on the subject recently. So as usual I could be wrong.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

apusapus said:

"Chris Maginn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a

site

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that has an indepth discussion?

Sack you coach and forget about this trivia. Just run.

FWIW, I experimented with my own optimal cadence on the treadmill. Just set the speed to race
pace, and then try to find the cadence that produces the lowest heart rate.

Crude, yes. But it did seem to work for me (I run very little due to knee issues, but do OK
in races).

So Mark, what were the specifics of your treadmill test? For a given running speed, there must be a
trade off between the additional energy required for a faster leg turnover and the probable losses
due to increased vertical body displacement with a longer stride. For shorter events, effectiveness
overshadows efficiency but for long distance, the 180+ bum shuffle would arguably be more efficient
as well as possibly reducing fatigue inducing foot strike forces.

Phil Holman

In article said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

apusapus said:

"Chris Maginn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

> Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a

site

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that has an indepth discussion?

Sack you coach and forget about this trivia. Just run.

FWIW, I experimented with my own optimal cadence on the treadmill. Just set the speed to race
pace, and then try to find the cadence that produces the lowest heart rate.

Crude, yes. But it did seem to work for me (I run very little due to knee issues, but do OK in
races).

So Mark, what were the specifics of your treadmill test? For a given running speed, there must be
a trade off between the additional energy required for a faster leg turnover and the probable
losses due to increased vertical body displacement with a longer stride. For shorter events,
effectiveness overshadows efficiency but for long distance, the 180+ bum shuffle would arguably be
more efficient as well as possibly reducing fatigue inducing foot strike forces.

Anecdotally, some have observed that the mile is approximately the point at which turnover increases
notably. I've observed that I start getting slight turnover increases as I get close to 1 mile race
pace when doing track intervals.

For shorter distances like 400m or less, turnover would probably be much faster than 180/min,
possibly as high as 240/min.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Chris Maginn said:

I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low
(may 160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on
increasing this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to
a site that has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.

My only expertise is from running for 15-16 years but generally a faster turnover rate is better
because at a given speed the momentary impact on each footfall is less. The total impact on the
system from foot to hip may be the same per mile but by breaking it up into smaller doses your
body will be happier. My experience is that my stride is a lot shorter and faster at a given
pace than it was 10-15 years ago. Not because I've studied the wisdom of the greats but just
because it hurts a hell of a lot less and the old body just can't take "opening it up" like it
used to. I can't tell you when the law of diminishing returns kicks in on cadence but in general
picking up the cadence a bit is more likely to help you than hurt you, even if it's just your
longevity as a runner.

You express your experience quite well. Wouldn't a faster cadence: reduce the amplitude of vertical
bounce, reduce the time of each footplant, limit overstriding, reduce impact on the foot, reduce the
amount of deceleration between pushoff and footstrike, reduce knee flex, reduce degree of pronation,
reduce range of foot dorsiflexion, make the stride more plyometric, recruit the lower leg more, ...?
Natural running surfaces allow for faster recovery than paved. In that sense they do not kill the
legs. Now, if someone could invent a shoe for running on pavement that has the same effect.

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chris Maginn said:

I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low
(may 160). Upon the advice of my

Tri

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on increasing

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

point me to a site that has an indepth discussion? Looking at

long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

term effect on performance, injury, etc.

My only expertise is from running for 15-16 years but generally a

faster

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

turnover rate is better because at a given speed the momentary

impact on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

each footfall is less. The total impact on the system from foot to

hip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

may be the same per mile but by breaking it up into smaller doses

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

body will be happier. My experience is that my stride is a lot

shorter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and faster at a given pace than it was 10-15 years ago. Not because

I've

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

studied the wisdom of the greats but just because it hurts a hell of

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lot less and the old body just can't take "opening it up" like it

used

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to. I can't tell you when the law of diminishing returns kicks in on cadence but in general
picking up the cadence a bit is more likely

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

help you than hurt you, even if it's just your longevity as a

runner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You express your experience quite well. Wouldn't a faster cadence:

reduce

Quoted message said:

the amplitude of vertical bounce, reduce the time of each footplant,

limit

Quoted message said:

overstriding, reduce impact on the foot, reduce the amount of

deceleration

Quoted message said:

between pushoff and footstrike, reduce knee flex, reduce degree of pronation, reduce range of foot
dorsiflexion, make the stride more plyometric, recruit the lower leg more, ...? Natural running
surfaces

allow

Quoted message said:

for faster recovery than paved. In that sense they do not kill the

legs.

Quoted message said:

Now, if someone could invent a shoe for running on pavement that has

the

Quoted message said:

same effect.

Nike Terra circa 1982.

Phil Holman