Maybe 180 isn't what we should be after?
Just the other day, I ordered a cadence meter to try out with my running. I was prepared to set it at 180 beats/minute in hopes of ensuring that’s what my foot strikes were. I’ve been tested for this before by a PT and found to already have that cadence, but still, a recent shot of me at the Naked Foot 5k made me wonder if I wasn’t still over striding a bit. A 180 cadence, I thought, would help ensure I wasn’t.
For years now, and most especially of late, runners have sought out the magic cadence of 180 foot strikes per minute. This was a number originally recommended by legendary coach Jack Daniels as the most optimum for running efficiency, and one that pretty much the entire running community has embraced. With the newish trend towards more natural running, the 180 concept has gained even more ground. The idea is that a 180 cadence will help keep your legs under your center of gravity, thus leading to fewer injuries.
And then I read this post by Pete Larson, co-author with Bill Katovsky of Tread Lightly (review to come), and I realized that maybe it was time to abandon the idea of 180 being a magic number.
You see, Pete has become quite the student of the sport. One of his tools in learning is a camera or video lens. He recently acquired footage from the Olympic trials of those vying for a spot at the 5,000 meter distance and broke down each athlete’s cadence. You know what? The vast majority were above 180 and only one or two were actually at 180.
What are we to make of this? The jury is still out–there are quite a few factors at play here. Most of the footage came from the final 600 meters, suggesting that the athletes were at about top speed at this point. Would it be logical to assume their cadence runs higher at this stage? Or can we presume these athletes all hit better than 180 any time they are running? And if the elites aren’t at 180, should we be?
Whatever the case, Pete’s point in his post is that maybe we need to stop getting so hung up on one number. Maybe the most efficient cadence is going to be different for different individuals.
So back to my cadence meter. Should I use it or not? I still think it would be interesting as an experiment. I think the evidence Pete found suggests that we all probably want at least a 180. But maybe just as I go low tech in regards to a GPS watch (I don’t wear one), I should leave well enough alone.
Have you been seeking the holy grail of 180 beats/minute? Do you hit it? What do you think of these findings?
YES. Use it. Just for curiosity sake and to see if it can help. Who knows, maybe if you shorten (or increase) your turnover rate you’ll become like the most awesomest runner on the whole entire planet. Wait, you already are. Oh well, use it anyway that way I can see the results… because it’s all about me, ya know.
Pavement Runner recently posted..3 Websites Good For The Entire Body
My running store counted mine for me and made me feel like as long as I was close to that 180 number than don’t stress it. Basically it’s a guideline but I wouldn’t obsess over it. I was just below it.
Kris @ http://www.kris-lawrence.com recently posted..Short & Sweet Weekly Recap
Interesting…I’ve been debating buying a meter because I have been wondering if I’m overstriding as well. My local running store said pretty much what Kris’ did – just work to get close to 180 but don’t stress about it.
Michelle @ Running with Attitude recently posted..Week 2 – Half Marathon Training
Very interesting. I try for a quick turnover and come pretty close to 180 most of the time, though sometimes I get lazy and tired and things fall apart. But I do think that everyone is different and we shouldn’t get hung up on a single number for everyone to strive for. I think high turnover is something to work towards vs saying the exact 180. But I’m a newbie runner in the world of running….
Heather (Where’s the Beach) recently posted..Low-Key Weekend & More Dry Needling
I am not an expert but all those turnover and cadence ‘magic’ numbers have always seemed silly to me. Bus as I said, I am not an expert, I just run.
Ewa recently posted..17min 46sec – trust me, time well spent
Yes, use it but don’t get hung up on the number. I recently got a device to measure my cadence, and found that I typically hover around 180. I keep that number in the back of my mind, but I focus on quick turnover and what feels good rather than shooting for 180. Hopefully the cadence meter will help you determine what the right cadence is for you.
Ama_Runs recently posted..A Memorable Vacation and a Meh-morable Run
I must confess…I have no idea what mine is…never checked or thought to check. Maybe I should.
Robin Brunet recently posted..Follow Up!!
No magic number. How can millions of runners around the world all somehow run exactly the same way? I agree more with Matt Fitzgerald that lots of running creates more efficient runners, not focuisng on matching another’s stride or cadence or form.
Kovas – Midwest Multisport Life recently posted..Compressport Compression Gear
Very timely post for me. I’m really trying to improve my form and just recently started counting my turnover. Sadly I’m low, like 160ish. I’ve been working on it and more conscience but it is really hard. One thing I have noticed is most of the faster runners I know take tiny little steps. Sometimes I wish I didn’t read so much about running as I feel like it takes the joy out of it a but for me.
Fueled by Spite recently posted..Tennis anyone?
I’ve never heard of the 180 number and have never thought about cadence at all. I don’t think it is something that athletes here in our country worry about as I’ve never read or seen anything about it over here. I agree with Kovas that it can’t be used for millions of different runners. Also not for runners that run on different terrain an slopes.
Johann recently posted..Num-Num Trail Challenge Report
It would be a fun experiment, but I agree it’s probably nothing too get hung up on. I remember trying to count my cadence on my own just using my watch on a normal running day many years ago and it was hard to do! I kept restarting the count… not sure why it was so hard! I think there’s always something new to learn with running and if you have a cadence meter, you might as well try it out!
Jen B. recently posted..Running Highs and Lows
Use it. Just so we can see the results (-:
I usually count my cadence a few times each run, using 30sec intervals.
It has sort of become a habit of mine. Even do it in races just to take the mind off of the pain.
My happy place seems to be around 190-200 right now. When I first started counting a couple years back it was around 170-180. My running shoes have changed over that time as well from heavy Brooks Glycerin’s to the medium weight Launch to no the Pure Flows. My guess is that the foot wear change is a factor.
Jeff Irvin recently posted..Buffalo Springs Lake Tri 70.3 …
I just try to use it as a guideline, the main point is to increase your cadence to take shorter steps so that your feet land more in the middle of your body instead of out in front of you. That doesn’t surprise me that the elites were above 180 in that race – because they were almost sprinting at that point. And generally the faster you are the higher turnover you can do right?
Nelly recently posted..Olympic Trials in the books
Hmm. This is all very silly if you ask me. Obviously 180 would not be some magic number for all people, or all paces.
There is value in being able to run a faster cadence. You avoid overstriding but you also use different muscles which can be very useful in the marathon. Good runners seem to be able to get speed both ways, as needed.
I like to track my cadence to make sure I can keep it as high as I want to when tired. But having done that a ton, I really don’t need to …I can tell my cadence pretty well without looking.
There is great article by one of my favorite go-to guys for this stuff here:
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/11/speed-stride-length-x-stride-frequency.html
If you like to learn cutting edge stuff about running science you should follow this blog for sure!
Paul recently posted..July 4th trip, ID and WA and RUNS
Interesting…I’ve been told my cadence is too high – it’s ~190 for an endurance pace and ~ 205 at race pace. I figured at 4’10″ and I have short little legs that I naturally have a faster cadence. I had a full blown gait analysis at Boulder Center for Sports Medicine (very expert people there) and they told me to try to slow down my cadence a bit. I’ve TRIED to slow it down but rarely get it under 190. Nice to hear different opinions!
brg recently posted..Tale of Two Diets – Simple Carbs vs Complex Carbs and it’s impact on endurance running
I’ve enjoyed reading other people’s comments on this post— I would love to have my cadence tested sometime. I’ll have to figure out how to count it myself (so I guess this means I should be hitting the ground 90 times in 30 seconds?)
If I had to guess, I think mine would probably be a little too low because I tend to have a longer stride (I think?) I’ll have to give this a try. Thanks for reminding me of this concept!
Katherine @ Neon Blonde Runner recently posted..Mountain Biking Richmond VA
Wow! Lots of great responses! I like what Kovas said and he has a point. I would like to monitor my cadence and see how it relates to running efficiency and pain. Keep it up! I’m curious to follow you!
Jess @ Blonde Ponytail recently posted..New GNC Workout: Butt Blaster
Like you said, I think it would be interesting to do as an experiment…but I think the best way to reach your potential and reduce the risk for injury is to run in a way that feels natural and right to you…and that might be different for everyone! Looking forward to the book review
Beth @ RUNNING around my kitchen recently posted..Being present & a new activity
I’ve heard of the 180 tip but never really sure what my cadence is. I agree that not overstriding is important and that cadence is probably slightly different for different people. I would still use the counter…but that’s because I love having info.
Tina @ Best Body Fitness recently posted..Why Does Protein Matter?
funny you mention this. I bought one about 3 months ago when I got injured and still have yet to use it. I saw that same article about the 5000m in the OT. I also saw a posting about all the foot strikes of the athletes in the 10000m… I think the point is, we are all different. And I think trying to change your stride or gate too much can cause more harm than good…. I was told I supinate and strike on the outside of my foot too much… but many of the runners in the 10000 strike the same way. So go figure. I’m trying to not over obsess or analyze too much now.
Kristy (@KrisRunTri) recently posted..The Start Of A New Training Cycle – NYC Marathon & Nike Women’s Half
I used a cadence meter a few years ago after taking a Chi Running class. It helped me to increase my cadence, as I was reallly slow (around 155) before taking the class. The faster cadence was one of the things that I worked on with switching from heel striking to a mid foot strike, so it’s been helpful to me. Although I haven’t used the meter in quite some time, so I really don’t know what my cadence is right now. Maybe I’ll test it out on my next run.
Beth @ Miles and Trials recently posted..Marathon Recovery
interesting. I think it’ll be worth trying out and experimenting! Very interesting post, especially for a person like me that knows VERY little about running in comparison to many runners. Thanks for the insight.
marissa recently posted..Healthy Foods?
As I’ve been easing back into running, one of the things I’ve done to pass the time is try to get a lock on my cadence. As best I can tell, I’m under 180, though not hugely. I want to have a gait analysis done to see if this is a problem or not. I’m glad cookie cutter in this case may not be the right attitude (is it ever???).
Terzah recently posted..Book Review: Eat & Run
Interesting post! I try running around 180 and it feels right to me.
Christine recently posted..Checking in with my 2012 Goals
I’m 6 feet tall and suffered from chronic ITB pain. Verdict from PT, chiropractor, gait analysis, etc – weak gluts, tight ITB, overstrider, heel striker. I needed help in the worst way. I reviewed my average cadence after runs ~ 150 SPM. Hubby gave me the Garmin 610 w/ foot pod so I would have instant access. This forced me to shorten my stride, increase my turnover, and engage my gluts. My latest runs have been 180-182 with no ITB pain, and I was just able to convert to minimalist shoes. I don’t think 180 is the magic number for everyone, but I couldn’t be happier with my progress.
Run Jilly Bean recently posted..Liquid Awesome
If I recall, i was pretty darn close to 180 the last time I checked. I don’t pay any attention to it. I’d use the meter for kicks.
Marcia recently posted..Psychology of the Closet Purge
Haha, I’ve never checked this. I must be a horrible runner…I just do whatever I want.
Charissa recently posted..Smoothie Love
I’ve hit the holy grail of 180 BPM but that’s with my heart rate. I have no idea what my cadence is.
Char recently posted..Cutting The Cheese
I can relate to brg, who is 4’10″. I’m 5 feet tall and 180 seems too slow for me. I’m usually at 190-200 or more without any effort. Maybe our short legs have something to do with it.
while in Quebec I saw a great PT. one who is specialized in running. he is the PT for our national track team. so I trust him.
I have a tendonitis in my groin. that’s why I went to see him in the first place. he checked my gait and made a video to show me that I heel strike big time..even barefoot…so….he did mention the 180 number…and I am now counting my steps. At first I was under..I am tall and my strike was too long. It is hard for me to take shorter steps does not feel natural..but I am getting closer to 180. today I was at 176! progress! forces me to have a faster pace that is an adjustment!
Caroline recently posted..GIVEAWAY!
The Running Formula was the first running book I ever read. I immediately latched on to the 180 steps per minute and worked for a few months on picking up my stride count (I was really low). I found that my speed increased tremendously during that time (I was in the Army at the time and my 2 mile time dropped from a 15:15 to 14:15). Since then, I really don’t count my cadence – I think I’m probably hovering around 180 steps but to be honest, I haven’t checked in a few years.
I would try it out – just for curiosity’s sake…but I’d say that if you are running well (and injury free) that you should still to what is working!
Michele @ nycrunningmama recently posted..Sparkly Soul Headband Giveaway WINNER!
I had always heard that Joan Benoit had a cadance faster than 180. So I feel like 180 is a good goal to strive for but not necessarily the best, depends on each person. I know I usually start to hit 180-182 when I race and run tempo runs but on long runs I slow to 170ish. Every once in a while I will try to count my cadance (kind of similar to counting your HR). Just more data to examine!
J recently posted..Boilermaker 2012
I’d love to know what you discover by doing this as I have heard that 180 is the magic number and if it is maybe I should also try it.
Toni Church recently posted..A Cheribundi Announcement plus Week 1 Marathon Training Recap Vlog
I think using a cadence meter is worth doing, to get yourself up to that 180 level if you can, but if you’re already there and you’re comfortable I don’t think it’s worth using just to push yourself to get to 182 or something. At that point the number isn’t really necessary. There are so many things to focus on, and personally I prefer just watching the time! Great blog, love the posts.
Greg at Dazadi.com