Is Running 180 Steps Per Minute the Magic Cadence?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2023
- Form Cues: bit.ly/2WgqJcG
Running Form podcast: bit.ly/3zddXlF
Free shipping on Goodr! bit.ly/3Jdw5lk
What should your cadence be while running? Your cadence - or step rate per minute - is the number of steps that you take while running. And if you understand running cadence, you'll have much better running form.
Many runners have heard that a cadence of 180 steps per minute is ideal. But is it, really? Since cadence partly depends on speed, we have to measure it at the right time and be in the right range according to our ability.
Don't forget to get FREE shipping on your next pair of Goodr sunglasses: bit.ly/3Jdw5lk
Jason Fitzgerald is a USATF running coach, 2:39 marathoner, and the host of the award-winning Strength Running Podcast. He's the 2017 Men's Running Magazine's Influencer of the Year and his work has appeared in Runner's World, Health Magazine, The Washington Post, Lifehacker, and other major media.
Visit strengthrunning.com/ to see their award-winning blog, free email courses, and full library of training programs and coaching services.
Podcast: apple.co/2L19km1
Twitter: bit.ly/3aGos5e
Instagram: bit.ly/2FARFP2
Facebook: bit.ly/2ZDEXIU
FTC Disclaimer: This video was sponsored by Goodr, which means a fee and/or free product was provided to the creator for this partnership. 
Спорт
I give up with looking at my cadence as ive been running nearly 3 years and still between 160-170...Think you can overthink to much on it....Never forget why you started running...I did it for my mental health/mind....But honestly i love it...Run for fun
Great video.
Listening to Drum 'N' Bass music on my run is SUPERB for my cadence. Anything from 172-180bpm is bang on for me, and the music really keeps my timing flowing.
I don't remember who said that, but the quote went like this: if you're paying much attention to your cadence, you're not running naturally.
.
Natural cadence is the most optimal for every runner.
.
My Garmin registers numbers between 158 to 215. With very similar form
spot-on overview of cadence. I'm about to give the same info to my cross country team.
Really appreciate the 10 minute pace breakdown. Nobody says this and it is so frustrating for beginners trying to figure all this stuff out. Thank you!
Those glasses are absolutely hideous but that aside don't forget that the faster you run the longer your stride will become simply because you get more 'airtime' meaning that our foot will travel longer between leaving the ground and touching down again. This usually also means shorter Ground Contact Time so long strides are not a bad thing - just check some of the fastest runners stride length - if it is a result of travelling at high speed.
Thank you for some much needed common sense on this topic. It's really great to hear the conventional wisdom isn't, as usual, so wise.
Those elite long-distance runners are usually short guys. A taller runner will have biggers legs and will have a bigger stride without opening the legs too much (keeping the same angle).
Therefore, he has naturally lower cadence for the same speed and that's ok.
Yep...the elite runners racing 1 mile or longer distances are tiny....hover around 5'7" 125 lbs. Kipchoge is listed at 5'6" 115lbs.
absolutely. You can not compare the east african average leg length on elite runners with sub-elite europeans.
See the graphic at 5:55. Height plays a role, albeit a small one.
Finally truth has been told about Cadence. Thanks a lot.
My slower running cadence is around 170 at 9:00 or slower on a slow distance run. I regularly practice max cadence at 230 doing 100m or 200m strides around 5:20 pace. I can reach this cadence sometimes in the final 50m to 100m of a race. It's only possible with very strong hip flexors and absorbing footstrike impact very abruptly to minimize any loping during the stance phase. At 230, there's no time for loping, haha!
If you focus on proper form with you ankles being aligned straight up to your knees when you hit the ground cadence will probably be where it should no matter what pace you're at.
My last marathon I had a cadence of 188 SPM, which is the most I have had in a marathon (approaching 30 marathons). I ran my third-fastest marathon that day with decent weather, but not PR worthy, of 2:37:07. What I believe helped me is I got a walking/jogging treadmill that has a very small length. The length is only 42.5” while a normal treadmill is upper 50s or 60s. This has forced me to pick up my SPM to not fall off for all my slow running, which is 95% of my running due to it being the winter and this treadmill maxes out at 7:00 per mile.
Out of curiosity... What's your height?
@@StreamHottieSuperSimp My height is 5' 10.25" (178.44 cm). Weight for that marathon was around 155 lbs (70.31 kg)
@@Marathon5151 Alright! With that cadence I guessed you wouldn't be taller than 5'2 or so... That's fast! 🙂
@@StreamHottieSuperSimp Thank you very much. I'm working hard to try to get under 2:35, but I am 39 years old and only getting older, haha.
Doesnt leg length also plays a role? A 5'6" runner with shorter legs is naturally going to have a shorter stride than a 6'3" guy with longer legs.
I just wrote about it in another comment here.
Most definitely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it is SO funny that people always tend to forget the most basic factor - leg length. "You should run this cadence!".... "but mom i got little legs".- Its basic physics.
No... the physics proves this. BUT, (and this is a BIG BUT) let me explain. Different height in persons is not much different than if you took two circles (overly simplified). One with a circumference of 5 inches. vs. a circumference of 10 inches. All circles will always have the same contact point to the surface. And that is at 90 degrees to the surface regardless how big the circle. HOWEVER, that is not the point. The point is that contact to the surface should be as close to 90 degrees to the surface if you want to avoid energy loss, avoid injury and BE THE MOST EFFICIENT RELATIVE TOO THE RUNNER'S ABILITY. But, also remember the surface is not always level and so the 90 degree rule not apply in the same way for all running surface conditions as well as fitness level. This means that taller vs. short runner's change cadence because of fitness level relevant to the environment (which includes change in slope of foot contact to the ground) and not because cadence should be greater or less than 180spm. In other words, for example, taller or shorter runners will change cadence running up a hill mostly because of fitness level and restrictions created by the change in terrain but that doesn't mean 180spm is not the optimal cadence. Instead, it means it is not the optimal cadence because the runner can not achieve the goal of finishing if they tried to maintain a 180spm.
Exactly, and as an mechanical engineer I could even do the math. But it isn't necessary, because for me, a good pace would be 168-172 spm. I'm 6'2 with pretty long legs.
When I started running my cadence was around 170-75….8 years later it’s averaged 180-182 almost every run
What about age? Im 63 and most of my runs are 10-11 minutes per mile and cadence in the 155-160 spm. At my age and talent, I couldn't get to 170 spm if I wanted to. Back in the day, yeah. Not so much today.
The issue I have with "trainers" telling everyone that they should simply increase their cadence is that isn't helpful. Cadence, as I see it, is the result of your form at a given pace. As stated in the video, you don't want long, loping strides as that means you're going too far into the air and crashing on landing. Fix your form and the cadence will follow suite. I feel it's more helpful to give people coaching cues like looking at the horizon to ensure it isn't bouncing or thinking about landing more like how a stone skips across water.
If cadence were the end-all, be-all of running, then actually you'd want to lower it. Get it all the way down to one. I'd love to be able to run a mile with one step, but that's not how physics works.
and your leg length and running form.
I had a conversation with Jack Daniels, in the early 00s. He said that he observed his runners having a faster cadence as speed than they did in warmup or easy runs.
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
Most runners stride too long and with much too low of a cadence. So running slow at 180 is not bad advice, the takeaway should be most runners would benefit from shorter strides and a faster cadence.
Cadence is pace related as shorter and faster distance must have individually higher cadence.
excellently explained. pace = cadence x stride length so both cadence and stride will vary depending on pace.
My cadence at my easy pace is low 170s @ 11-12 min per mile. Is that ok?
It all depends on your leg length, how comfortable you feel on your run and your running form.
Sure! If you're feeling good and aren't always injured, this falls into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" bucket.
I would posit that muscle fiber makeup also plays a factor. I assume that I have a paucity of fast twitch fibers. I can't maintain 90+spm (L-R = 1, I can't count much higher😄) more than ~15min. My stride rate ranges from 80-82 for easy runs to ~100 for 30sec hill sprints. That is something I've worked on and has increased over time. It depends on speed/distance, as well as fatigue and fitness.
I disagree with this. Look at how a lot of other fast-twitch athletes run (baseball comes to mind). Their cadence is slow because they basically don't know how to run easy efficiently (only sprint and do fast-twitch things). I just don't think this matters much. Also seems like you're only measuring cadence for one leg. Gotta count both!
I agree with Jason. I run around 100-150 miles per week with 90% being slow-running and my cadence for the last marathon was 188 and finished with a time of 2:37:07. I would say I'm mostly slow-twitch muscles. I'm 5' 10.25"
Rickey Henderson! While it may not be muscle fiber, there’s something in my neuromuscular makeup that makes my cadence efficient relatively slow. No, I don’t over stride. I have videos. My foot hits the ground pawing back, my stance is under my center of gravity, and my strike is quiet.
I’m perfectly happy counting LR=1 like my Polar does.
@@adamfeerst2575 is a quiet foot strike preferred? If so, when and why?
I do believe that it is dangerous to focus on cadence when it basically is an physics equation based on your leg length and speed of legs movement. Short legs have naturally higher cadence than long legs at the same movement speed. People should focus on form and comfort and forget all about cadence and anyone with a voice and platform should tell amateur runners that it can be injury inducing focusing on this metric.
Speed is a byproduct of both cadence AND stride length. You focus on the one that you can gain the greatest benefit with lowest probability of injury base on your fitness level, body composition and running environment. There is no perfect combination of stride and cadence but rather there are a LOT of perfect combinations that change not only in HOW a runner should train (or race) but WHEN a runner should change either stride, cadence or both/neither.
So, yes... a runner can focus on cadence and improve and a runner can focus on cadence and not improve. But, you can't automatically rule out or decrease the importance of cadence as part of the equation to generate more speed. That being said, you do increase your chances of injury the lower the cadence is from 180 only because that group tends to over stride.
HOWEVER, there are narrow ranges of cadence close to 180 spm that will generate the greatest potential of forward power (vs. vertical) because the physics proves this in mostly unrealistic standard environments. As for stride, there is only preferences based on body morphology but those preferences may not be the optimal. Instead, they are optimal for that athlete. And, that MAY be enough to gain optimal performance for that particular situation and at that particular competition or training session. This is how a runner's success is frequently determined by "who shows up" to race.
157 here but would and need to get to 165-170 i hope but not sure how
A song list with 170bpm or 180 bpm! There are quite some on Spotify. Or you can pick a few songs from your favourite music, and compare them to the 180bpm ones. If they are close, then just use your own music. I have a favourite song which is at 180bpm, and I just loop over and over during my run. I don’t mind it. If you don’t listen to music during your runs, then use a metronome and practice a bit to get used to that rhythm before you start the run.
But, if I want to do 12-13 minute miles, my cadence is low 150s. To increase cadence at that speed I need to take shorter steps… micro steps?
Micro steps are not economical and you can feel it. What's the problem of 150 steps per minute?
I don't think so. You'd need to push off harder to get more distance per stride. You just want to ensure you're pushing forward, not upward. (you'll always go up a bit; this isn't skating) This is a big part of speed training. It teaches your body to produce more power and hence you're able to take longer strides without "loping". When you start going forward more and less upward, you'll find your cadence automatically increases as there's less "hang time" in your stride. I have no idea if any of that made sense. :)
Cadence should be 180 whether or not you’re running 12:00 miles or 6:00 miles. I ran track in college and all of my old distance running teammates have 180-200 regardless of pace
☝️No mate
@@alexm1841 lol no. Never listen to the "I know a few guys and they do this" line of argument! This crackpot idea is exactly why I filmed this video. Of course your old college track teammates have high cadence. THEY'RE FAST. Cadence is mostly a function of speed! 🤦♂
I was running at 160 in the past, then learned to run at 180. I am now running between 180 and 190 and around 200 for faster intervals.
I have no idea if this made me more efficient runner. When I was transitioning I noticed it takes higher effort to move legs faster at the same speed. I have no idea if this is only during transition period.
But I noticed I feel much better, "lighter". And because I run for health both physical and mental, it is good enough reason for me to stick to it.
This also caused me to notice other people's cadences and 160 looks unbearable to me now.
--
As to your guest who said you should stick to the same cadence of 180. I think you might have dismissed him too quickly.
My cadence grows as I run faster because my legs are not used to be driving those long steps and moving in a big arc.
Eliud Kipchoge runs marathons at 190 steps. He runs way faster than my intervals and yet he does it at much lower cadence. Why is that?
Moving legs back and forth quickly takes a lot of effort. It is wasted energy.
Imagine your leg is extending forward -- you need to use muscles to stop it, then start moving it backward. When it moves backward behind you -- you need to use your muscles to stop it and start moving it forward. At higher cadence you have less time to do so and must use more force, AND do it more frequently. More force requires more muscle (which is more mass on your legs which further increases amount of energy necessary for the movement).
While standing, start rocking your leg in air back and forth. Then start doing it faster and faster -- you will see a sharp increase in exertion as you increase the speed.
On the other hand moving them further does not cost a lot more -- but it requires that you are trained to do so.
Keeping to a steady cadence of 180 will require you to lengthen your stride WHICH IS A GOOD THING.
And if you don't believe me -- go see those videos of top marathoners. They all run at a pretty similar cadence, THE SAME CADENCE they use for much slower training.
you can not measture your efficiency by candence. Nothing is more important than how you feel and your running form. Cadency is a physics equation based on your leg length and the speed in which you move them. Got short legs = cadence is higher than a long legged runner with same pace.
My cadence already 160 SPM for 12minutes per miles pace. so this is good cadence?
Sure, it's fine! Slightly higher might be preferred but I wouldn't worry too much.
@@JasonFitzgerald yeah, i may look funny if I run with 180SPM for 12 minutes pace. Thank you for your clear explanation on the video.
180 spm is not magic IF a runner can't sustain the cadence. However, runners who can maintain this cadence tend to be closer to the theoretical optimal point of contact to the ground under the body's center of gravity and allows the maximum power (i.e., push off) at 90 degrees on a LEVEL surface (i.e., vertical motion converts to forward momentum). The problems is that surfaces are seldom at 90 degrees to foot contact and fitness levels of runners vary - a lot. But, that doesn't make 180 (or anything in that range of spm) the optimal goal for improving running economy. Instead, it means what's that there is NO point of running at 180 spm IF YOU CANT' FINISH THE EVENT. So, instead, runners find their optimal cadence relative to the environment and fitness level. This becomes their PREFERRED cadence. And, none of that means that 180 spm reduces injury potential and provides the most efficient point of contact to the ground. It only means the runner does not prefer to run at that cadence because it is suboptimal to their ability and changes in the environment (especially including elevation changes).
In short, runners find THEIR optimal cadence plus stride length but that does not make it THE optimal. If it did, no one would ever improve running as their fitness improved and with it running stride that can produce the greatest amount of forward propulsion at 180 spm cadence in a perfect environment (which doesn't exist). So, it wasn't the observation that the best runners keep a 180 spm that created 180 spm as a "best" cadence but rather it was runner's who found that 180 spm produced the "physics/math-based" better times in the optimal running environment. And, that sort of running situation doesn't exist in real life but can be considered a goal to help improve running and reduce injury potential. Thus, you have studies showing all sorts of results when it comes to 180 spm and its impact on running performance. But, performance should not be confused with "theoretical" optimal.
I disagree that the vector force on the ground is at 90deg. Your foot should be "pawing" back, moving back relative to the ground when it strikes. What angle is that? 45? IDK.
@@adamfeerst2575 The math proves 90 degrees is the point of maximum single directional force potential ... in an overly simplified example. Maximum propulsion force occurs occurs at one point and that point coincides with 90 degrees to the surface. Any contact point before or after that point creates tangential forces that do not generate maximum propulsion. Once the contact changes to less than 90 degrees the amount of force decreases from that point and any angle greater than 90 degrees (which are points before ground contact), produces "wasted energy" since forces are being direct upward. That is one reason why you get vertical movement when you run. Your idea of "pawing" is simply describing a process that describes going from less efficient energy state to a perfect point of contact producing maximum force at 90 degrees to a decaying state of energy as the force moves to less than 90 degrees.
Input also in kilometers pace not just in miles
I would love to know who sets the standard of “correct” information is when it comes to running. Jason are you suggesting that you are the standard and that when folks have a different opinion than that of yours then it’s labeled “misinformation” in your book?
There are basic principles and principles that are settled. Read a few dozen training books and you'll find that they're all in agreement on these issues. I just have a problem when people have an opinion on a matter of fact (like, "cadence should always be the same" or "heel striking is bad" or "high mileage is dangerous"). Many of the arguments made in RUclips comments (i.e., "it's dangerous to focus on cadence!") have never been made by any established coach or in any training book. If you can only find the argument being made by psuedo-coaches or amateur runners on the internet, it's likely incorrect. I only publish info on what I believe to be correct. If there's nuance/grey area/room for interpretation, I'll say that.
Which unpublished podcast guest espoused the exact cadence of 180 steps per minute? I would like to review their blogs/books/online writings and videos to see if there is merit to their notion and to understand their perspective. Thank you.
It's so frustrating that people think an incorrect idea is a perspective. People can just be flat out wrong without you needing to "understand their perspective" (i.e., the moon landing was faked, Trump won the 2020 election, heel striking is bad). Tune these people out; they are not clear thinkers.
@@JasonFitzgerald According to you. According to you.
Thank you! Cadence is the most mis-used, abused, misinterpreted, misinformed metric based on an off-handed comment from an observation.
Hi! My cadence when I run 9:30-10:00/mile pace is 178-180, when I run 7:00-7:10 is 180, when I run 5:40-6:00/mile pace is 180-184, so I it is almost the same, your guest was correct saying that, I mean my cadence doesn't jump from 179 to 192 like yours but it is a change but not too crazy.
That means you're overstriding when you are running faster. You most likely heel strike and your leg is more likely to hit the ground in front of your body.
@@peddfast nope, not overstriding and not a heel striker
@@peddfastyou’re wrong, higher cadence means he’s moving his legs faster and not over striding
180 cadence is NOT optimal if you are a slow recreational runner. You look like an idiot if you maintain 180 cadence in a slow 7-8min/km jog.
Also, many elite marathoners have cadence of 160-170
O'dear selling...