More efficient running style

1 lurker | 183 watchers

First
Prev
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Next

jda Jun 2019 10:39am, 19 Jun 2019 4,660 posts	0 jda SPR, I wouldn't argue for the same cadence at all speeds but given that I and, I suspect, many others, have tended to run at a rather low cadence, practising a higher one seems worthwhile even at steady speeds.
icenutter Jun 2019 10:43am, 19 Jun 2019 207 posts	0 icenutter SPR, I totally agree that 180 isn’t the magic number. But I do think that ‘faster is better’ for most recreational runners. By definition running is distinct from walking as leave contact with the ground. Faster cadence = less contact time = more flight = greater speed for same effort
Dvorak Jun 2019 10:48am, 19 Jun 2019 17,720 posts	0 Dvorak "The idea that everyone should aspire to run with a cadence of 180 (i.e., taking 180 steps per minute) under all circumstances" ... is anyone really promoting this? I don't think so. I do though think that 180 cadence is a decent benchmark for most runners putting in a bit of effort over distance on flattish ground, over a range of paces.
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Jun 2019 10:54am, 19 Jun 2019 448 posts	0 SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Many have wrongly taken the 180 number as a fixed ideal step rate to aim for, when I think it's always meant to be the minimum (because this is when muscle elasticity starts to return energy) and that, as SPR rightly says, it increases with speed -it has to! those who go faster but maintain the same step rate are starting to over stride. interestingly though, as I understand it, step rate doesn't increase in a linear fashion with speed
SPR Jun 2019 10:57am, 19 Jun 2019 28,080 posts	0 SPR Icenutter - I don't think greater speed for same effort is true. In any case faster cadence might mean less time between each stride, but I doubt it automatically changes the air to ground ratio per stride. Jda - Possibly, guess it depends on what we're classing as low. I can see how just easy running would mean a runner is limited when it comes to racing in regards to turnover, but can imagine a runner with high cadence easy running suffering the opposite problem if that's all they did. Running at different speeds would seem to be the best option.
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Jun 2019 10:58am, 19 Jun 2019 449 posts	0 SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) A good way to practice running with a higher cadence is to do it in place for a while first, and focus on pulling OFF rather than landing ON
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Jun 2019 11:01am, 19 Jun 2019 450 posts	0 SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) I agree with icenutter. A quicker cadence means less of an overstride. It takes less effort to change support than it does getting your bodyweight over your over stride
SPR Jun 2019 11:39am, 19 Jun 2019 28,081 posts	0 SPR I pretty sure there's swings and roundabouts in there. There are costs to a quicker cadence Also if the runner is landing under their knee, I don't care what their cadence is, they aren't over striding.
SPR Jun 2019 1:20pm, 19 Jun 2019 28,082 posts	0 SPR This whole thing is a good read but has a section on stride length and stride frequency frontiersin.org
Canute Jun 2019 1:21pm, 19 Jun 2019 1,950 posts	0 Canute SPR, that was an interesting article reporting the high efficiency and low ground contact times of elite Kenyans. That makes sense, but I would again emphasize that need for compromise between the three main energy costs of running. Short ground contact leads to low braking cost (demonstrated using the law of conservation of angular momentum if you are interested in physics). However short ground contact time relative to length of the gait cycle necessarily requires energy to get you airborne. This illustrates my earlier statement you can decrease braking costs by increasing the energy spent on getting airborne. There comes appoint where the extra energy required to get airborne exceeds the savings from reduced braking. The evidence provided by the Kenyans suggests that many of us might be more efficient if we decreased ground contact a bit. The question is how much? It is probable that there is an optimum ground contact time that maximises the elastic recovery of the energy of impact. Also as I noted earlier, getting airborne requires a push. You cannot pull yourself off the ground. For those interested in physics, that follows from Newton’s third law, but those with a more practical inclination can demonstrate this by trying to get off the ground by pulling their shoe-laces. The need for push in turn creates the need for adequate strength, especially the strength to sustain eccentric contraction as elastic energy is captured. Plyometric training is effective, but risky. Moderate amounts of sprinting is a safer method for many recreational athletes.