Running at 180 - running efficiency
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2007-03-19 11:17 AM |
Master 1384 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: Running at 180 - running efficiency The most recent issue of Runner's World has a piece on running at 180rpm - your cadence of course. Lately, I've seen a few articles/talk about running efficiently and 180 seems to be the magic number. Reportedly, the top runners in Tri as well as pure runners (marathons, etc) have an rpm of approx 180. I took note of this yesterday for the first time (during my LSD), and I'm doing 174 - guess that's my comfort zone. I like shorter strides but was having a hard time adjusting to increasing higher than my comfort zone of 174. How many of you actually run at around 180 and for those tha made the effort to get to that number, was it a tough adjustment? |
|
2007-03-19 11:21 AM in reply to: #728385 |
Expert 1113 Las Vegas | Subject: RE: Running at 180 - running efficiency I also read that article, however, I didn't want to try it out until after my half mary on st. patty's day. I am looking forward to giving it a try this week. Curious as to what my stride count is. I can see how that might be awkward as you need to add 6 to 8 more strides every minute. |
2007-03-19 1:25 PM in reply to: #728385 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Running at 180 - running efficiency *sigh* I'm going to regret this..... First, there is no "magic" number. Not every elite runner runs at 180. Some run lower, some run higher. John Kagwe runs at about 170. And he wins marathons. Second, the vast majority of MOP runners are usually within 10% of the elites in terms of cadence. Messing with your cadence in an "unnatural" way may make you less efficient. My opinion: The best cadence for you is the one that you naturally run at. If you want to become a better runner, run more often. Your cadence will naturally go up on its own. A bigger determinant is stride length, and force applied to the ground.
|
2007-03-19 1:32 PM in reply to: #728385 |
Subject: RE: Running at 180 - running efficiency When I first counted I was about 172 or so. I worked on increasing my cadence. I've no idea what it is, I just try to run where it "feels" right. The one thing I can say is that since increasing my cadence I have almost completely eliminated shin splints from my vocabulary. |
2007-03-19 1:41 PM in reply to: #728385 |
Master 1641 Cambridge, MA | Subject: RE: Running at 180 - running efficiency I saw the same RW article about the magical 180 and have worried, just a little, that I'd be messing with my natural pattern if I measured and started targeting that number. I honestly don't know my cadence, and I wonder if caring about it should make any difference. The article didn't convince me either way really.
|
2007-03-19 1:42 PM in reply to: #728385 |
Veteran 332 Calgary | Subject: RE: Running at 180 - running efficiency I've not read that article, but I have read that advice before. The idea being that at 180rpm (or higher) you spend more time moving forward and less time moving up and down. I normally run at about 160-170, and have done some workouts at 180. But I just can't keep it up at 180 for much longer than about 30 minutes (even at the same speed, 180 seems like a lot more work for me than 160.) And since the whole point of running at 180 is supposed to be to use LESS energy, I'm not going to be pushing myself to get up there for all of my runs. |
|
2007-03-19 2:17 PM in reply to: #728385 |
Regular 102 Indiana | Subject: RE: Running at 180 - running efficiency My cadence is around 168. Thats where I feel comfortable at. When I try and increase my cadence it feels as though I am putting out more energy. |
2007-03-19 3:41 PM in reply to: #728385 |
Lethbridge, Alberta | Subject: RE: Running at 180 - running efficiency I was never much of a runner when I was young, though I hiked and walked a lot. When I first took up running, I tried to run like I walked, with big long strides. After several years of attempts to start running and several long layoffs to recover from injuries, I finally learned a little more about running techniques. I increased my running steps/minute to 180+ but kept my effort low and my strides very short since I was still getting over the latest injury. I was also learning to ride my bike with a cadence over 90rpm and the similar muscle firing frequencies seemed to reinforce each other. I found the turnover rate easy to hold but it's taken a long time to build up my calf and hamstring muscles. After a couple of years, I'm just now getting back to the speed I was running at before. However, now I'm doing it without hurting myself and going much farther than I could before too. While 180+ seems to be working for me, like Scout7 I'm not convinced it's a 'magic number' for everyone. Each persons 'magic number' will probably be affected by other factors, with individual technique and form playing a big part. I think a person's ideal turnover rate might change if they change their technique and, conversely, forcing a cadence change might also lead to running form changes. Some styles may work best at 180+ but perhaps other combinations are equally as good? This is just my own idea though. Scout7 has asked before to see documented studies supporting the 180 rate and so far I don't know of any. Until there is some hard evidence, we are all just experiments of size 1. |
2007-03-19 3:45 PM in reply to: #729054 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Running at 180 - running efficiency Micawber, exactly. Here, I found this while looking at other information: Excerpt: One factor that impacts gross efficiency is movement frequency. That can be cycling cadence, or rowing stroke rate, or stride frequency in XC skiing. Higher cadences tend to cost more energy in general. And heavier limbs have been shown to be less efficient to move. However, there is a balance such that trained athletes tend to zero in on an optimal cadence for their body type and anatomy. When they are pushed away from that cadence, they use more energy to do the same work. Therefore, it is important to realize that the ideal movement frequency is not a universal, but varies from individual to individual. So, you should not try automatically to mimic your training partner’s cadence if they are much taller or shorter, or more or less muscular than you. |