# Running - cadence **URL:** \ **Category:** Sports & Exercise\ **Created:** [October 13, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500 "2019-10-13T15:44:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/1 "2019-10-13T15:44:09Z")

Sorry, no diabetes here. Just some running talk and discussion on the “ideal” cadence, which is actually different for everyone… First of all, what is running cadence? That’s the number of steps per minute (SPM). It is also called stride rate (SR). Basically, your speed comes down to the number of steps you are taking and how long each step is. That is the simplest way of boiling it all down. For this discussion, we _could_ get overly technical, and discuss why things like mechanical power and metabolic power do not equal each other, because energy gets absorbed when your foot hits the ground and also when it pushes off. And there are many other factors - like leg spring stiffness, vertical oscillation, ground contact time, vertical ratio, flight time, pronation angle, braking force, transverse hip rotation, and on and on… But let’s keep it simple and just focus on stride rate (SR) and stride length (SL). The length of each step X how often you take each step is your speed. SL x SR = speed * * * * * * Some people may tell you that 180 SPM is what you should have. There has been a recent wave of commentary telling people to strive for 180. That 180 is the magic number because that is what the Olympians have. But that is not correct. To start with, the 180 figure came from a study by running coach Dr. Jack Daniels during the 1984 Olympics. For any running event for a distance of 800 meters and longer, almost every single Olympic athlete had a SR of greater than 180. So of course people took that to mean that everyone should hit a cadence of 180 or more. But that is not understanding the entire picture. There is a lot they are missing. Why is there not one cadence that is right for everyone? Think about running a short distance with a ridiculously high cadence, such as 250 steps per minute. Now think about running the same distance and taking very few steps, but each step is extremely long, like hopping from one foot to the other. Compare what would feel tired afterwards. In the first example, your heart would be racing. In the second example, your legs would be dead. There is a trade-off between higher and lower cadence. At a higher cadence, there is a greater cardiovascular demand but less metabolic fatigue - the reduced ability of the muscle fibers to contract. At a higher cadence, there is also a corresponding shorter stride length (SL), and therefore less braking from each foot strike. At a lower cadence, there is less cardiovascular fatigue but higher musculoskeletal stress, and therefore a quicker onset of metabolic fatigue. A stride is comprised of the anterior portion (moving your leg forward) and the the posterior portion (moving your leg backward). A higher cadence means a shorter stride, and that equates to having a much shorter anterior portion of your stride. Having a longer stride (lower cadence) will generally mean longer on both anterior and posterior. A longer anterior stride ends up causing greater stress on hamstrings and more braking forces. Landing with your foot in front of your hips causes more braking compared to landing with your foot directly below your hips. A longer stride means less efficient running economy and greater reaction forces with the ground surface. Also a longer anterior stride means you are using your glutes less. And the bottom line for cadence - the elite runners in the Olympics have better cardiovascular fitness than the rest of us. So their ideal cadence is not the same as for the rest of us. Their hearts can handle a higher cadence. * * * * * * Another reason there is not a single perfect cadence for everyone has to do with our leg mass. If a runner has larger and heavier calves, it will take more force to move the legs than it would for a runner who has lighter calves. In general, a runner with bigger calves will have a lower cadence than a comparable runner who has heavier thighs and lighter calves, because the calves are farther from the point of revolution - the hips. (That’s why you wear light shoes!) * * * * * * Here is a summary of the general ideas I am trying to share. - Having a higher cadence is generally better when a runner is comparing it to their own lower cadence. Two different runners comparing cadence is not really relevant. - The magical number of 180 has more to do with performance. It is not something that needs to be the specific target for all runners. It can be used as a comparison figure, but not an absolute. The correct cadence will be different for everyone based on a multitude of factors such as fitness level, mechanics, and leg mass. - Since there is no exact number everyone should try to achieve, just compare your cadence at the beginning of the run with the cadence at the end, and try to maintain it. Over time, work to increase it. - Form should always be the first consideration (particularly, landing below your hips instead of in front of your hips). Before working on developing a higher cadence, make sure your form is correct, then work on cadence. Over time, work on developing a higher cadence compared to your current one, but make sure you have proper form first. - A higher cadence requires higher cardiovascular fitness, so that is something that needs to be developed over time for long runs. If you try to do the same exact run as far as distance and pace, and just increase your cadence in one day, you will be left frustrated. **References** > > > Ten recreational runners (mean VO2max 64.7 ml . kg-1 . min-1) underwent a 5-d acclimation period to treadmill running at a 7 min . mile-1 pace (3.83 m . s-1) for 30 min each day. During these runs their freely chosen stride lengths were determined and expressed as a percentage of leg length (%LL). On two subsequent testing days stride length was systematically varied over a range of +/- 20% LL about the freely chosen value. O2 uptake was determined by the Douglas Bag method. All subjects exhibited a stride length of which O2 uptake was minimized, although the individual profiles varied considerably. The mean increases in VO2 were 2.6 and 3.4 ml . kg-1 . min-1 at the short- and long-stride length extremes, respectively. During unrestricted running deviations from optimal stride length caused a mean increase in VO2 of 0.2 ml . kg-1 . min-1. The relatively efficient running patterns used by the subjects during unrestricted running indicate either an adaption to the chosen stride length through training or a successful process of energy optimization. > **[180 isn’t a magic number- Stride Rate and what it means](https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html?v=7516fd43adaa)** > > Speed= Stride Rate X Stride length It’s simple. It warrants repeating. Through in Ground contact in and you’ve got a nice model….But I digress… There have been a recent surge in articles and blogs … > > > The purpose of this study was to describe kinematic changes that occur during an actual marathon. We hypothesized that (1) certain running kinematic measures would change between kilometres 8 and 40 (miles 5 and 25) of a marathon and (2) fast runners would demonstrate smaller changes than slow runners. Subjects (n = 179) were selected according to finish time (Range = 2:20:47 to 5:30:10). Two high-speed cameras were used to measure sagittal-plane kinematics at kilometres 8 and 40 of the marathon. The dependent variables were stride length, contact time, peak knee flexion during support and swing, and peak hip flexion and extension during swing. Two-tailed paired t-tests were used to compare dependent variables between kilometres 8 and 40 for all subjects, and regression analyses were used to determine whether faster runners exhibited smaller changes (between miles 5 and 25) than slower runners. For all runners, every dependent variable changed significantly between kilometres 8 and 40 (p \< 0.001). Stride length increased 1.3%, contact time increased 13.1%, peak knee flexion during support decreased 3.2%, and peak hip extension, knee flexion, and hip flexion during swing decreased 27.9%, increased 4.3%, and increased 7.4%, respectively (p \< 0.001). Among these significant changes, all runners generally changed the same from kilometres 8 and 40 except that fast runners decreased peak knee flexion during support less than the slow runners (p \< 0.002). We believe that these changes, for all runners (fast and slow), were due to fatigue. The fact that fast runners maintained knee flexion during support more consistently might be due to their condition on the race day. Strengthening of knee extensor muscles may facilitate increased knee flexion during support throughout a marathon.Runners changed kinematics significantly from kilometres 8 to 40 (increased stride length, contact time, peak hip flexion during swing, and peak knee flexion during swing, and decreased running speed, stride frequency, peak knee flexion during support and peak hip extension during swing).Fast runners demonstrated more peak knee flexion during support throughout a marathon.Runners generally changed kinematics similarly (between kilometres 8 and 40) except that fast runners exhibited a more consistent peak knee flexion during support than slow runners.Resistance training that would increase both muscular strength and endurance of knee extensors may increase peak knee flexion during support and help maintain it similar to the fast runners throughout a marathon. > > > To assess whether distance runners displaying uneconomical freely chosen step lengths (FCSL) could be trained to shift FCSL toward a more optimal setting, six males and three females who exhibited uneconomical FCSL \[mean optimal step length (OSL) = -9.81% of leg length from FCSL; mean change in oxygen uptake (VO2) (FCSL - OSL) = 1.46 ml.kg-1.min-1\] comprised an experimental group that completed 15 treadmill sessions (30 min/day, 5 days/wk, 3 wk) of OSL training at individually determined running velocities (2.87-3.74 m/s). Training sessions featured alternating 5-min periods of combined audio and visual feedback matching OSL and no feedback. A control group of three subjects with uneconomical FCSL (2 males, 1 female) performed 3 wk of treadmill running without feedback. The extent of step length optimization was evaluated by comparing pre- and posttraining differences between FCSL and OSL and between pre- and posttraining VO2. Compared with the control group, the experimental group demonstrated a significantly (P \< or = 0.05) greater relative shift in FCSL toward OSL and a marked reduction in FCSL VO2. Taken together, these results suggest that short-term audiovisual feedback training can be effective in optimizing step length and producing a decrease in aerobic demand among distance runners exhibiting uneconomical FCSL. > **[Running economy: measurement, norms, and determining factors](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/)** > > Running economy (RE) is considered an important physiological measure for endurance athletes, especially distance runners. This review considers 1) how RE is defined and measured and 2) physiological and biomechanical factors that determine or... ---

**Author:** ![Nickyghaleb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Nickyghaleb](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Nickyghaleb)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/2 "2019-10-13T16:04:00Z")

Haven’t actually read your post—just a preemptive heart because you’ve turned me into a cadence-counting fool, and I’m thrilled to see some good _Eric-info_ on it. 🤗 And now I’ll go read… ---

**Author:** ![Nickyghaleb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Nickyghaleb](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Nickyghaleb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/3 "2019-10-14T15:45:48Z")

> [@Eric](#): > > At a higher cadence, there is a greater cardiovascular demand but less metabolic fatigue - the reduced ability of the muscle fibers to contract. Trying to figure out what metabolic fatigue might actually feel like when I’m running. I have noticed that with a lower cadence, my breathing falls apart, and I’m working harder overall. When I start to feel that kind of tired, I’ll do a cadence check. Just knowing I’m going to count it fixes it almost immediately. I assumed it was because it was kind of a _straightening up in my seat_ kind of thing. Maybe not though… ---

**Author:** ![elver](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/elver/32/8772_2.png) [@elver](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/elver)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/4 "2019-10-14T16:56:47Z")

> [@Nickyghaleb](#): > > Trying to figure out what metabolic fatigue might actually feel like when I’m running That’s where the Jack Daniels part comes in… (not really, just goofin!) ---

**Author:** ![Nickyghaleb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Nickyghaleb](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Nickyghaleb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 9:54pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/5 "2019-10-14T21:54:13Z")

> [@elver](#): > > That’s where the Jack Daniels part comes in… You mean… to make determining what metabolic fatigue feels like easier…or to make me no longer worry about what metabolic fatigue feels like? 🤔 ---

**Author:** ![elver](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/elver/32/8772_2.png) [@elver](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/elver)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 10:12pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/6 "2019-10-14T22:12:56Z")

Sure! I like your answers better than mine anyways. 🤪 ---

**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 10:27pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/7 "2019-10-14T22:27:44Z")

> [@Nickyghaleb](#): > > Trying to figure out what metabolic fatigue might actually feel like when I’m running. Can you do pushups? Like 20? or 50? Or 100? That’s an easy way to feel it. If you do as many as you can until you can’t do any more - your arms won’t move anymore - that is metabolic fatigue. You won’t generally get there with endurance running unless it is a race or a shorter event. Long before you reach that point in running your body will quit because of several other things. There are many limiting factors in endurance exercise. Metabolic fatigue is only one of them. There is also muscular fatigue, aerobic capacity, maximum oxygen uptake, energy depletion (muscle glycogen), mentality, many cardiac and pulmonary factors like pulmonary diffusion, cardiac output, blood volume, hemoglobin, mitochondria, etc. And probably a bunch more factors I am not thinking of. Maybe we should we do a different thread sometime on some of those other things? ---

**Author:** ![Nickyghaleb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Nickyghaleb](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Nickyghaleb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 11:08pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/8 "2019-10-14T23:08:26Z")

> [@Eric](#): > > There are many limiting factors in endurance exercise. Metabolic fatigue is only one of them. There is also muscular fatigue, aerobic capacity, maximum oxygen uptake, energy depletion (muscle glycogen), mentality, many cardiac and pulmonary factors like pulmonary diffusion, cardiac output, blood volume, hemoglobin, mitochondria, etc. And probably a bunch more factors I am not thinking of. I only recognize _mentality_ from that list. That one I know well and understand fully, but for the rest, > [@Eric](#): > > Maybe we should we do a different thread sometime on some of those other things? Yes, please. ---

**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 11:56pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/9 "2019-10-14T23:56:42Z")

Okay, but let’s finish chewing up cadence a bit first. ---

**Author:** ![Nickyghaleb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Nickyghaleb](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Nickyghaleb)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 1:14am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/10 "2019-10-15T01:14:27Z")

> [@Eric](#): > > Okay, but let’s finish chewing up cadence a bit Which means I’ll try to finish the reading now… Which brings me back to my question though… why does increasing my cadence feel like it lightens the workload? It sounds like it should be the opposite?? ---

**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 2:53am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/running-cadence/8500/11 "2019-10-15T02:53:32Z")

> [@Nickyghaleb](#): > > why does increasing my cadence feel like it lightens the workload? It sounds like it should be the opposite?? There is a tradeoff between cardio and muscle effort. And there is a sweet-spot you are looking for. If increasing the cadence feels like it makes the run easier, than your cadence is not too high yet. At some point when cadence gets too high, it won’t feel like it decreases workload. At some point, increasing the cadence will make your heart work much harder, while your muscles are practically doing nothing. If your legs are taking 2 inch strides, there isn’t any work for them, it’s easy. But your heart would be saying, WTH? If you want to see this, try running a mile (at any pace) with a cadence of 200. See how that feels! And then you will think, “This cadence did **NOT** lighten the workload!” I think that will help you see the tradeoff.