Upping cadence

Quoted message said:

I want to up my cadence, but not sure how!

At the moment I am running (and don't laugh!) at 72 footstrikes / min
at my aerobic training zone. If I up my cadence, my heart-rate
exceeds my training zone and I have to slow down again, then my
cadence goes down, it's an evil cycle!

What do I do?

It would be helpful to know your age and weight. At 72 steps per
minute that would seem to be a good bit of vertical displacement and
most likely heel strike first. If your entire body weight comes down
on each foot strike, there's a lot of energy being wasted as you have
to get that weight's center of mass back up for the next step.

Check out my blog article http://www.mindfulness.com/blog/mindful-running/?p=16
The Tinikling video is around 180 steps/ minute. You see how light
they are on their feet. They're keeping there center of gravity up so
they're only lifting their legs and not their center of mass.

Ozzie Gontang
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic

thanx ozzie, i reviewed my running style and i do come down on the
heel. i been working on striking the middle outer of the foot and
then going straight to the toes aswell as beeing light on my feet.
I've upped the cadence to 82 foot strikes / minute. also, be reducing
my gait, my heart rate stays the same!
thanx for the help

Quoted message said:

thanx ozzie, i reviewed my running style and i do come down on the
heel. i been working on striking the middle outer of the foot and
then going straight to the toes aswell as beeing light on my feet.
I've upped the cadence to 82 foot strikes / minute. also, be reducing
my gait, my heart rate stays the same!
thanx for the help

Something you might try is to just run for, say, 30-60 sec, taking tiny
steps so that you can do the equivalent of 180 foot strikes / min (90
right (or left) foot strikes / min) - or something close. For 30 sec,
that would be about 45 right footfalls. Don't worry about heart rate or
anything else. That's why I'm suggesting a short time period - just to
see what it's like without risking injury. And don't worry about getting
exactly 180, but many people for easy runs are usually in the 170-180
range give or take a bit. There are some exceptions.

Just a thought. If you're using a hrm and struggling to keep your hr
below some level and running awkwardly to do that, you might be
"leaping" (sorta) to keep the hr that low. Sometimes once you feel what
the end result should feel like, it becomes easier, but still need to
make adjustments gradually. (been there done that - leaping along at
about 150-160 footfalls/min, iirc, and adjusted to 175-180 give or take,
if on even ground)

Another thought. If you're counting every foot strike, you may find that
you're slowing your cadence so you can count. Try just counting your
right (or left) foot strikes and aim for 85-90. (I can't count breaths
without altering my breathing.)

And one more thought. Are you sure you're using the right training zones
for your hrm? Many people underestimate their max hr and hence their zones.

Good luck.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Quoted message said:

It would be helpful to know your age and weight. At 72 steps per
minute that would seem to be a good bit of vertical displacement and
most likely heel strike first. If your entire body weight comes down
on each foot strike, there's a lot of energy being wasted as you have
to get that weight's center of mass back up for the next step.

Check out my blog articlehttp://www.mindfulness.com/blog/mindful-running/?p=16
The Tinikling video is around 180 steps/ minute. You see how light
they are on their feet. They're keeping there center of gravity up so
they're only lifting their legs and not their center of mass.

Ozzie Gontang
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic

I read this post, and your blog, right before my run yesterday. With
your words in mind, I practiced taking quick little baby steps for the
duration of the run. I usually take small steps anyway - I have really
short legs - in the past when I tested my cadence it ran around
166ish. This time, I managed to get it up closer to the 180 range - I
tested twice, one time came in at 175, the other time 185. I ran close
to 3 miles at 11:48 pace, which is pretty good for me, though not my
fastest.

The 185 was when I was running on a long, gradual downhill. On the
downhill, I definetly had the feeling of falling, as you describe in
your blog. The weird thing however was that my right foot still wanted
to roll and push off. So for a stretch it seemed like my right foot
was acting like a piston to my left, which wasn't rolling. This was
probably also a factor of running in the gutter of the road - the
camber. Aerobically speaking, it seemed like no trouble at all to fly
down the hill at a 185 cadence.

It was harder to maintain this on the uphill. It took a lot of focus -
I seemed to naturally want to take larger strides to maintain my pace
up the hill. When I maintained the baby steps I couldn't hold the pace
without searing my lungs. And my heels started bothering me for some
reason.

I did feel like I was going faster, even with such small steps,
particularly on the downhill - I felt like I was flying. Without
rolling and pushing off with my foot, I felt more efficient although I
am still doubtful. Seems to me that pushing off would give me more air
to cover more distance - even if stride length remains small?

A couple of times I felt like I was going to trip myself up, my steps
were that small. In fact, I almost did trip once, when a car-with-
oblivious-cell-phone-using-driver came barrelling down in my lane, and
I had to quickly jump to safety on the curb. It was hard to shift from
tiny baby steps barely off the ground, to a big jump to a high curb.

Overall, this running style felt more comfortable to my body,
particularly my hips and knees. However, late last night before bed I
had a lot of grumpiness in my calves. Not pain - more like restless
legs and healthy muscle soreness like they'd had a workout. I don't
recall the last time my calves felt like they'd been challenged like
that. Usually I feel it more in my quads and hamstrings.

Here's the thing: if I continue with this, where does the increased
speed come from? How will I get back to an 8:30 pace which I was once
capable of? If it's a factor of aerobics, does that mean that my
cadence will be higher than 180? It seems to me that the speed has to
come from increased cadence, longer stride, or more powerful push
off.... but by what you are recommending, it's all about the cadence.
So am I to assume that I would have to build up a cadence higher than
180?

I guess I still don't understand how that works.

jen

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

Quoted message said:

On Jun 13, 3:47 am, [email hidden] wrote:
...
Here's the thing: if I continue with this, where does the increased
speed come from? How will I get back to an 8:30 pace which I was once
capable of?

Stride length. Same turnover/cadence.

BTW, you referred to "I usually take small steps anyway - I have really short legs".
The turnover rate/cadence, and stride length isn't a matter of length of leg. The
turnover rate is about how far you "fall" between steps. 180 or so, and it's a gentle
and comfortable action, and landing (midfoot) is pleasant. At 150, the bounding and
landing action is awfully jarring.

Racing (100 m, up to maybe 5K), the turnover is faster as well as the stride length
longer.

BTW2: Uphill and downhill are different experiences. Keep same cadence, but
adjust stride. Downhill will be more jarring, but you get smoother with practice and
intent.

Quoted message said:

If it's a factor of aerobics, does that mean that my cadence will be higher than 180?
It seems to me that the speed has to come from increased cadence, longer stride,
or more powerful push off.... but by what you are recommending, it's all about the
cadence. So am I to assume that I would have to build up a cadence higher than
180?

Not an aerobic issue. High cadence or low cadence, same speed is about the same
energy consumption. Differences are in economy of style (you are more efficient at
what you a used to, +/- really bad style which will have an economy penalty).

Quoted message said:

I guess I still don't understand how that works.

Same cadence. Vary stride to vary speed. For (long) uphill, try to stay close to same
perceived exertion as on the flat - unless doing deliberate hill training (for leg strength
and aerobic training). For downhill, coast swiftly and safely.

Tomasso.

Quoted message said:

jen

Tomasso said:

"shinypenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Jun 13, 3:47 am, [email hidden] wrote:
...
Here's the thing: if I continue with this, where does the increased
speed come from? How will I get back to an 8:30 pace which I was once
capable of?

Stride length. Same turnover/cadence.

BTW, you referred to "I usually take small steps anyway - I have really short legs".
The turnover rate/cadence, and stride length isn't a matter of length of leg. The
turnover rate is about how far you "fall" between steps. 180 or so, and it's a gentle
and comfortable action, and landing (midfoot) is pleasant. At 150, the bounding and
landing action is awfully jarring.

Racing (100 m, up to maybe 5K), the turnover is faster as well as the stride length
longer.

BTW2: Uphill and downhill are different experiences. Keep same cadence, but
adjust stride. Downhill will be more jarring, but you get smoother with practice and
intent.

Quoted message said:

If it's a factor of aerobics, does that mean that my cadence will be higher than 180?
It seems to me that the speed has to come from increased cadence, longer stride,
or more powerful push off.... but by what you are recommending, it's all about the
cadence. So am I to assume that I would have to build up a cadence higher than
180?

Not an aerobic issue. High cadence or low cadence, same speed is about the same
energy consumption. Differences are in economy of style (you are more efficient at
what you a used to, +/- really bad style which will have an economy penalty).

Quoted message said:

I guess I still don't understand how that works.

Same cadence. Vary stride to vary speed. For (long) uphill, try to stay close to same
perceived exertion as on the flat - unless doing deliberate hill training (for leg strength
and aerobic training). For downhill, coast swiftly and safely.

But that's not what Ozzie is suggesting in his blog, if you follow the
link. He says to focus on taking baby steps at a high cadence, versus
long strides. And to land on heel and forefoot, not the heel. It's not
about the push off - it's about the controlled fall.

jen

shinypenny said:

It was harder to maintain this on the uphill. It took a lot of focus -
I seemed to naturally want to take larger strides to maintain my pace
up the hill. When I maintained the baby steps I couldn't hold the pace
without searing my lungs. And my heels started bothering me for some
reason.

Maintain EFFORT, not pace, on the uphills. You were doing it right -
baby steps, and just keep the effort. You will slow down.
http://www.skyrunner.com/story/ups_downs.htm

Quoted message said:

Here's the thing: if I continue with this, where does the increased
speed come from? How will I get back to an 8:30 pace which I was once
capable of?

Don't worry about pace. It will come with time.

If it's a factor of aerobics, does that mean that my

Quoted message said:

cadence will be higher than 180? It seems to me that the speed has to
come from increased cadence, longer stride, or more powerful push
off.... but by what you are recommending, it's all about the cadence.
So am I to assume that I would have to build up a cadence higher than
180?

Stride is the distance between footfalls (or maybe distance between 2
right footfalls, not sure) - it comes from differences in push off and
range of motion. Some (most?) speed comes from increased stride length
and maybe some from increased cadence.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

shinypenny said:

But that's not what Ozzie is suggesting in his blog, if you follow the
link. He says to focus on taking baby steps at a high cadence, versus
long strides. And to land on heel and forefoot, not the heel. It's not
about the push off - it's about the controlled fall.

"Somewhere" should be one of Ozzie's stories about different pace groups
and one trying to catch up with the other (slower, iirc). The lead group
would maintain cadence, but increase speed through stride length, and
the trailing group would always think they should be gaining since the
cadences were the same. (google on this for some discussion:
"author:Ozzie cadence speed stride length"; I don't have time at the
moment to find the right story, but there's lots of others that popped up.)

Also, if you have a group of runners on tm, you may find they're all
doing the same cadence, but the speeds are different - drastically
different if I'm one of the runners and one of the speedsters is another
runner.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

shinypenny said:

But that's not what Ozzie is suggesting in his blog, if you follow the
link. He says to focus on taking baby steps at a high cadence, versus
long strides. And to land on heel and forefoot, not the heel. It's not
about the push off - it's about the controlled fall.

"Somewhere" should be one of Ozzie's stories about different pace groups
and one trying to catch up with the other (slower, iirc). The lead group
would maintain cadence, but increase speed through stride length, and
the trailing group would always think they should be gaining since the
cadences were the same. (google on this for some discussion:
"author:Ozzie cadence speed stride length"; I don't have time at the
moment to find the right story, but there's lots of others that popped up.)

That did the trick - thanks! I found one post right off the bat, which
had a clear explanation that it's all about the lean from the ankle.
That makes sense and it's exactly what I experienced in my test the
other day. I was leaning more going downhill (naturally) so was
faster. So the next step is to play around with leaning while running
on a flat surface.

I like how Ozzie said that this can make a 10 or 12 minute miler run
as fast as 9 or 8 or even 7! :-)

I still don't understand what the tinkling video has to do with it!
I've seen tinkling performances, tried my hand at it, even, and it
seems the trick to not getting your ankle crushed by the pole is to
stay on your tip toes at all times.

jen

Charlie Pendejo said:

Quoted message said:

I still don't understand what the tinkling video has to do
with it!

Pervert!

Oh, you meant the tinikling.

I don't know what either of you mean but it sounds filthy. Count me in
please ;-P~

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

Quoted message said:

Tomasso said:

"shinypenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Jun 13, 3:47 am, [email hidden] wrote:
...
Here's the thing: if I continue with this, where does the increased
speed come from? How will I get back to an 8:30 pace which I was once
capable of?

Stride length. Same turnover/cadence.

BTW, you referred to "I usually take small steps anyway - I have really short legs".
The turnover rate/cadence, and stride length isn't a matter of length of leg. The
turnover rate is about how far you "fall" between steps. 180 or so, and it's a gentle
and comfortable action, and landing (midfoot) is pleasant. At 150, the bounding and
landing action is awfully jarring.

Racing (100 m, up to maybe 5K), the turnover is faster as well as the stride length
longer.

BTW2: Uphill and downhill are different experiences. Keep same cadence, but
adjust stride. Downhill will be more jarring, but you get smoother with practice and
intent.

Quoted message said:

If it's a factor of aerobics, does that mean that my cadence will be higher than 180?
It seems to me that the speed has to come from increased cadence, longer stride,
or more powerful push off.... but by what you are recommending, it's all about the
cadence. So am I to assume that I would have to build up a cadence higher than
180?

Not an aerobic issue. High cadence or low cadence, same speed is about the same
energy consumption. Differences are in economy of style (you are more efficient at
what you a used to, +/- really bad style which will have an economy penalty).

Quoted message said:

I guess I still don't understand how that works.

Same cadence. Vary stride to vary speed. For (long) uphill, try to stay close to same
perceived exertion as on the flat - unless doing deliberate hill training (for leg strength
and aerobic training). For downhill, coast swiftly and safely.

But that's not what Ozzie is suggesting in his blog, if you follow the
link. He says to focus on taking baby steps at a high cadence, versus
long strides. And to land on heel and forefoot, not the heel. It's not
about the push off - it's about the controlled fall.

jen

Just get out there and do it. 180 to 190 cadence, and midfoot, light, easy, etc will follow.

The lean at the ankles is a good observation.

12 min (per mile) runner at 7 min pace is a new one on me. Sounds unlikely. I doubt a 12 min runner
could run 200 metres at 7 min pace. After three years, maybe they can manage a mile at 7 min...

Tomasso.

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| >> I still don't understand what the tinkling video has to do
| >> with it!
| >
| >Pervert!
| >
| >Oh, you meant the tinikling.
|
| I don't know what either of you mean but it sounds filthy. Count me in
| please ;-P~
You dirty old [censored]! 🙂
PS: Don't pamper that baby beer belly too much.

Tomasso said:

"shinypenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tomasso said:

"shinypenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...
> On Jun 13, 3:47 am, [email hidden] wrote:
>...
> Here's the thing: if I continue with this, where does the increased
> speed come from? How will I get back to an 8:30 pace which I was once
> capable of?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stride length. Same turnover/cadence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, you referred to "I usually take small steps anyway - I have really short legs".
The turnover rate/cadence, and stride length isn't a matter of length of leg. The
turnover rate is about how far you "fall" between steps. 180 or so, and it's a gentle
and comfortable action, and landing (midfoot) is pleasant. At 150, the bounding and
landing action is awfully jarring.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Racing (100 m, up to maybe 5K), the turnover is faster as well as the stride length
longer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW2: Uphill and downhill are different experiences. Keep same cadence, but
adjust stride. Downhill will be more jarring, but you get smoother with practice and
intent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If it's a factor of aerobics, does that mean that my cadence will be higher than 180?
> It seems to me that the speed has to come from increased cadence, longer stride,
> or more powerful push off.... but by what you are recommending, it's all about the
> cadence. So am I to assume that I would have to build up a cadence higher than
> 180?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not an aerobic issue. High cadence or low cadence, same speed is about the same
energy consumption. Differences are in economy of style (you are more efficient at
what you a used to, +/- really bad style which will have an economy penalty).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I guess I still don't understand how that works.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Same cadence. Vary stride to vary speed. For (long) uphill, try to stay close to same
perceived exertion as on the flat - unless doing deliberate hill training (for leg strength
and aerobic training). For downhill, coast swiftly and safely.

Quoted message said:

But that's not what Ozzie is suggesting in his blog, if you follow the
link. He says to focus on taking baby steps at a high cadence, versus
long strides. And to land on heel and forefoot, not the heel. It's not
about the push off - it's about the controlled fall.

Quoted message said:

jen

Just get out there and do it. 180 to 190 cadence, and midfoot, light, easy, etc will follow.

The lean at the ankles is a good observation.

12 min (per mile) runner at 7 min pace is a new one on me. Sounds unlikely. I doubt a 12 min runner
could run 200 metres at 7 min pace. After three years, maybe they can manage a mile at 7 min...

Well, I like to think 8:30 is still within my reach someday - or at
least 9:00 - since I was able to run that fast about 7 years ago.
Please don't discourage me in that illusion. :-)

But yeah, that was during a time when I was doing a lot more weekly
mileage than now (less than everyone else here, but way more than I'm
doing now, at 10-12 miles per week). Back then, before I got
sidelined, I had increased to where I could run up to 13 miles at a
time.

jen

"I2Run" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| >> I still don't understand what the tinkling video has to do
| >> with it!
| >
| >Pervert!
| >
| >Oh, you meant the tinikling.
|
| I don't know what either of you mean but it sounds filthy. Count me
in
| please ;-P~
You dirty old [censored]! 🙂

Someone call me? Sorry I'm busy tinkling off the trail. I run so softly
my tinkle doesn't splatter.

Quoted message said:

PS: Don't pamper that baby beer belly too much.

Gotta get that Heineken out somehow!

-Doug listening to the potty talk.

I2Run said:

You dirty old [censored]! 🙂

oooooo you sure know how to talk to a guy ;-)

Quoted message said:

PS: Don't pamper that baby beer belly too much.

I am going to open a "pinch 4 inches" beer belly page :-P