Need Some Advice On Cadence
OldAssDude
Posts: 1,436 Member
I have been running for going on a year now, and i think my best mile pace is something like 10:15 (running the entire mile). I know that's not good, but when i first started running i could only run for about 30 seconds. I can run 5 miles non stop now, but my average pace for 5 miles is 14:00 to 15:00. I also do a lot of intervals, sprinting as the run interval (30 to 120 seconds) and power walking as the active rest interval (120 to 240 seconds), and i have hit paces of between 6:00 and 7:00 on the sprint intervals.
I know it's pathetic, but i'm 61 and still working on it.
I have been reading that you should run at a cadence of 180 no matter what pace you run at, and although i can do that at higher paces (higher for me), trying to do it on my long runs (5 miles at 14:00 to 15:00) just feels awkward and unnatural.
I have also read that the cadence rule of 180 is geared more toward Olympic runners and not regular people.
When i am doing my long runs, my cadence is usually between 150 and 160 for it to feel natural to me.
Not sure what is right and what is not, and could probably use some pointers from "real runners".
thanks in advance,
I know it's pathetic, but i'm 61 and still working on it.
I have been reading that you should run at a cadence of 180 no matter what pace you run at, and although i can do that at higher paces (higher for me), trying to do it on my long runs (5 miles at 14:00 to 15:00) just feels awkward and unnatural.
I have also read that the cadence rule of 180 is geared more toward Olympic runners and not regular people.
When i am doing my long runs, my cadence is usually between 150 and 160 for it to feel natural to me.
Not sure what is right and what is not, and could probably use some pointers from "real runners".
thanks in advance,
1
Replies
-
I'm not a fast runner, even after many years. At least 80% of my runs are between 11 and 12 miles per minute, so I don't find your 10:15 pathetic at all! Despite being so slow, I consider myself a "real runner"
My fastest mile ever was in 7:36min, but that was during a race, my everyday runs are much, much slower. My cadence is also much lower in training than in races. My fastest 5k was in 26:46, with a cadence of 178/min. My fastest marathon was 4:28:00, with a cadence of 179strides/min. Looking through my last five runs, my cadence for those was between 154 and 167. For me, cadence scales with the pace.
Here are some articles on running cadence I found interesting regarding the "magic 180" cadence:
Running Speed: Human Variability ... and Stride rate and what it means.
My personal conclusion from reading them is: if you are overstriding, try increasing your cadence. But I'm not driving myself insane worrying about the fact that my are at a lower cadence. As long as your form is good otherwise, I don't think you should obsess about trying to run at a cadence of 180 no matter what.
But f you really do want to improve it, don't do it abruptly, try to add some intervals with 10% faster cadence in your runs at first, don't try jumping to 180/min for all runs suddenly. There's metronome apps that can help you run at your goal cadence.4 -
First, 10:15 pace is NOT pathetic. I hate it when runners think they have to qualify their pace. Embrace it.
The idea behind the cadence has more to do with how you land (or where your feet land) than the actual number of steps per minute. If your cadence is quick it makes it harder to over stride.
A few weeks ago I ran WineGlass Marathon. A buddy and I both hit close to the magical 180 steps per minute (184 avg). He beat me by over 30 minutes. We're close to the same size, ran the same cadence, and he kicked my *kitten*. The difference was our stride length. I propelled myself forward about a meter per step. His was longer (I forget the exact number).
Now compare this to a 20 miler I did a few weeks later where my pace was 42 seconds per mile faster and you'll see my cadence was still close (187) but my stride length increased to 1.05 meters.
My 20 mile run was technically better. My form was on target - I engaged my glutes and kept my arms moving parallel with my body. My focus was better.
Had I done that at WineGlass he would have still kicked my *kitten*.
Since you have been doing this for a while I suggest a couple things. First, get your long runs longer. Start working your way to 7-10 miles. Also, it may not hurt to add some speed work into your routine. Maybe start with a good training plan for a 5K or 10K like this one.
The thing that keeps me going faster is running with folks who are of similar abilities (or a little faster). This keeps me motivated or I will fall behind. IMO, nothing beats a group of friends to make you faster.6 -
FWIW - My plan to kick Matt's *kitten* next year includes significant core and hip work. Working resistance training into your routine is important. As I am learning, running can only take me so far. Cross training (smart cross training) is important.2
-
_nikkiwolf_ wrote: »I'm not a fast runner, even after many years. At least 80% of my runs are between 11 and 12 miles per minute, so I don't find your 10:15 pathetic at all! Despite being so slow, I consider myself a "real runner"
Thanks.
My fastest mile ever was in 7:36min, but that was during a race, my everyday runs are much, much slower. My cadence is also much lower in training than in races. My fastest 5k was in 26:46, with a cadence of 178/min. My fastest marathon was 4:28:00, with a cadence of 179strides/min. Looking through my last five runs, my cadence for those was between 154 and 167. For me, cadence scales with the pace.
That 154 - 167 is about where mine is on my long slow runs. I shorten my stride length as i run slower because i don't wanna over stride. I want to land center mass of my weight.
Here are some articles on running cadence I found interesting regarding the "magic 180" cadence:
Running Speed: Human Variability ... and Stride rate and what it means.
My personal conclusion from reading them is: if you are overstriding, try increasing your cadence. But I'm not driving myself insane worrying about the fact that my are at a lower cadence. As long as your form is good otherwise, I don't think you should obsess about trying to run at a cadence of 180 no matter what.
But f you really do want to improve it, don't do it abruptly, try to add some intervals with 10% faster cadence in your runs at first, don't try jumping to 180/min for all runs suddenly. There's metronome apps that can help you run at your goal cadence.
I do hit the 180 (or close to it) during intervals because i'm running faster and it feels natural, but trying to hit that cadence at a 15:00 pace with such a short stride just feels unnatural (and probably looks stupid too
)
Thanks for the tips, and i will take a look at those links.0 -
First, 10:15 pace is NOT pathetic. I hate it when runners think they have to qualify their pace. Embrace it.
Thanks
The idea behind the cadence has more to do with how you land (or where your feet land) than the actual number of steps per minute. If your cadence is quick it makes it harder to over stride.
I try to land center mass of my weight. I have more of a flat foot strike than a heel or forefoot strike on flats. If i run up hill it's more of a forefoot strike, and down hill is more of a heel strike. But i do land center mass of my weight in all terrain.
A few weeks ago I ran WineGlass Marathon. A buddy and I both hit close to the magical 180 steps per minute (184 avg). He beat me by over 30 minutes. We're close to the same size, ran the same cadence, and he kicked my *kitten*. The difference was our stride length. I propelled myself forward about a meter per step. His was longer (I forget the exact number).
Now compare this to a 20 miler I did a few weeks later where my pace was 42 seconds per mile faster and you'll see my cadence was still close (187) but my stride length increased to 1.05 meters.
My 20 mile run was technically better. My form was on target - I engaged my glutes and kept my arms moving parallel with my body. My focus was better.
Had I done that at WineGlass he would have still kicked my *kitten*.
Since you have been doing this for a while I suggest a couple things. First, get your long runs longer. Start working your way to 7-10 miles. Also, it may not hurt to add some speed work into your routine. Maybe start with a good training plan for a 5K or 10K like this one.
my first goal was 5k and my next goal was 5 miles. My next goal is 10k, and then it will be 10 miles after that.
The thing that keeps me going faster is running with folks who are of similar abilities (or a little faster). This keeps me motivated or I will fall behind. IMO, nothing beats a group of friends to make you faster.
I don't really have anyone to run with, and even if i did, i probably would not be able to converse very well as i would be too busy huffing and puffing.
Thanks for the feedback, and i will keep working toward improvement.0 -
FWIW - My plan to kick Matt's *kitten* next year includes significant core and hip work. Working resistance training into your routine is important. As I am learning, running can only take me so far. Cross training (smart cross training) is important.
Yeah, i have to start doing some resistance training. I have a total gym (knock off) that i jump on once in a while, but i don't do it nearly as much as i should. I do hike at a park that is pretty hilly and can walk up grades that are just about steep enough to have to use my hands to pull myself up, and can do it just using my legs. My core does need some work too as i can only hold a plank for a couple minutes.
I could also probably stand to lose another 20 lbs. I have lost over 50 already, but i'm still clinically about 20 lbs. over weight.0 -
OldAssDude wrote: »I have been running for going on a year now, and i think my best mile pace is something like 10:15 (running the entire mile). I know that's not good,
I disagree about it not being good. Running a mile at any pace is more than most people can do. And you'd survive a slow zombie apocalypse, like Walking Dead.
I aim for 180 spm when I run. I don't always achieve it, but that's where I'm trying to be. Cycling feels best at a cadence around 80-100, and that's counting a full circle so both feet turning over. Seems like 180 should work perfectly well. But I'm not much of a runner.3 -
My watch gives me a cadence count. I find that if I'm running slow and easy (e.g. most of the time) my cadence is around 165. When I run up or down steep hills, it goes up to 180+ as I do short fast steps. When I am doing speedwork the cadence goes up as well. That's natural. As stated above, the biggest issue is where your feet land. They should be under your body, not ahead of it.
I like to incorporate short fast pickups in some of my runs to train my legs to go faster and to improve my overall form. (Pick up the pace for 25-50 paces, then slow it down and jog easy until fully recovered, then do it again.) It's always fun to see the little purple marks on my cadence graph, but I don't expect to see them all the time, unless I'm running a 5k.
As you run more miles on a weekly basis, your pace will pick up naturally. Including some faster segments but keeping most of your miles slow and easy will do you the most good. You've noticed a real slowdown as you run farther. That's because you are starting too fast. Start slow and easy and try to maintain the same pace for the whole run. That's how you build up your endurance, which allows you to run farther, and eventually to run faster for a longer period of time.3 -
First, 10:15 pace is NOT pathetic. I hate it when runners think they have to qualify their pace. Embrace it.
The idea behind the cadence has more to do with how you land (or where your feet land) than the actual number of steps per minute. If your cadence is quick it makes it harder to over stride.
A few weeks ago I ran WineGlass Marathon. A buddy and I both hit close to the magical 180 steps per minute (184 avg). He beat me by over 30 minutes. We're close to the same size, ran the same cadence, and he kicked my *kitten*. The difference was our stride length. I propelled myself forward about a meter per step. His was longer (I forget the exact number).
Now compare this to a 20 miler I did a few weeks later where my pace was 42 seconds per mile faster and you'll see my cadence was still close (187) but my stride length increased to 1.05 meters.
My 20 mile run was technically better. My form was on target - I engaged my glutes and kept my arms moving parallel with my body. My focus was better.
Had I done that at WineGlass he would have still kicked my *kitten*.
Since you have been doing this for a while I suggest a couple things. First, get your long runs longer. Start working your way to 7-10 miles. Also, it may not hurt to add some speed work into your routine. Maybe start with a good training plan for a 5K or 10K like this one.
The thing that keeps me going faster is running with folks who are of similar abilities (or a little faster). This keeps me motivated or I will fall behind. IMO, nothing beats a group of friends to make you faster.
Yay for another person who swam through Wineglass! Loved the course (I did the half), but could have done without the rain!2 -
collectingblues wrote: »First, 10:15 pace is NOT pathetic. I hate it when runners think they have to qualify their pace. Embrace it.
The idea behind the cadence has more to do with how you land (or where your feet land) than the actual number of steps per minute. If your cadence is quick it makes it harder to over stride.
A few weeks ago I ran WineGlass Marathon. A buddy and I both hit close to the magical 180 steps per minute (184 avg). He beat me by over 30 minutes. We're close to the same size, ran the same cadence, and he kicked my *kitten*. The difference was our stride length. I propelled myself forward about a meter per step. His was longer (I forget the exact number).
Now compare this to a 20 miler I did a few weeks later where my pace was 42 seconds per mile faster and you'll see my cadence was still close (187) but my stride length increased to 1.05 meters.
My 20 mile run was technically better. My form was on target - I engaged my glutes and kept my arms moving parallel with my body. My focus was better.
Had I done that at WineGlass he would have still kicked my *kitten*.
Since you have been doing this for a while I suggest a couple things. First, get your long runs longer. Start working your way to 7-10 miles. Also, it may not hurt to add some speed work into your routine. Maybe start with a good training plan for a 5K or 10K like this one.
The thing that keeps me going faster is running with folks who are of similar abilities (or a little faster). This keeps me motivated or I will fall behind. IMO, nothing beats a group of friends to make you faster.
Yay for another person who swam through Wineglass! Loved the course (I did the half), but could have done without the rain!
Me three! I did the full. I was very wet lol (the weather reports I had watched did not include rain..). It did stop for about miles 10-16 or so.
1 -
And OP, from a number of your recent posts, it seems like the bulk of your training is quite intense (pushing yourself quite hard to high HR for long stretches of time).
The general consensus, and what has worked for many of us to get faster, is to do the vast majority of our runs VERY easily with a small portion for higher intensity work.
I would suggest you consider trying that-although that is in complete opposition to the training process to which you are very committed.9 -
Your pace is awesome!1
-
spiriteagle99 wrote: »My watch gives me a cadence count. I find that if I'm running slow and easy (e.g. most of the time) my cadence is around 165. When I run up or down steep hills, it goes up to 180+ as I do short fast steps. When I am doing speedwork the cadence goes up as well. That's natural. As stated above, the biggest issue is where your feet land. They should be under your body, not ahead of it.
I have a Garmin fenix 5x and a Garmin Instinct. I have set up a data screen for cadence, pace and heart rate. I'm going to monitor my cadence compared to my pace and experiment a little.
I like to incorporate short fast pickups in some of my runs to train my legs to go faster and to improve my overall form. (Pick up the pace for 25-50 paces, then slow it down and jog easy until fully recovered, then do it again.) It's always fun to see the little purple marks on my cadence graph, but I don't expect to see them all the time, unless I'm running a 5k.
I do intervals where i do 30 second sprints and 2 minute power walks over almost a 4 mile course. On the sprint intervals i do get to the 180 range.
As you run more miles on a weekly basis, your pace will pick up naturally. Including some faster segments but keeping most of your miles slow and easy will do you the most good. You've noticed a real slowdown as you run farther. That's because you are starting too fast. Start slow and easy and try to maintain the same pace for the whole run. That's how you build up your endurance, which allows you to run farther, and eventually to run faster for a longer period of time.
I will start working more on slower longer runs. The furthest i can run non stop is about 5 miles, and i have not done that in quite some time. I usually do 3 to 3.5 miles on my slow long runs. Once I get back up to 5 miles and it becomes easy enough, i will start working up to 10k.
Thanks for the tips.0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »And OP, from a number of your recent posts, it seems like the bulk of your training is quite intense (pushing yourself quite hard to high HR for long stretches of time).
The general consensus, and what has worked for many of us to get faster, is to do the vast majority of our runs VERY easily with a small portion for higher intensity work.
I would suggest you consider trying that-although that is in complete opposition to the training process to which you are very committed.
I had a stress test about 4 years ago as a pre-screening for a surgery. It did not turn out good so they had to do a catheterization. Turns out i had a heart attack at some point in time.
I started doing the more intense cardio once i could work myself up to being able to do it without dying.
I don't do it every day, and the in between days i do power walks, or if i feel too beat up i'll just do a regular walk.
I recently had another stress test done, and not only is my heart healthy and strong now, but the cardiologist told me that my heart actually healed itself from the heart attack. I told him about all the cardio i do, and he said that is probably the reason.
You are right though. I probably do beat myself up a little too much some times, but i start feeling like a sissy if i don't. 1 -
180 can be awkward at that speed. I wouldn't worry too much about the exact number. Just make sure that you're taking short strides and are landing your foot underneath your center of gravity. In reality, anything above 170 spm is probably fine, maybe even into the mid to high 160's as long as you're consciously controlling your stride length.1
-
I'm 62 but I've been running a few years longer than you (I ran my first 5K in 2009) and your pace is fine.
How long is your stride? If it's too long it's harder to get the faster foot turnover. I just checked my last 2 runs and, according to my Garmin, my cadences were 177 & 175 respectively. For me the best thing I ever did was to start running outside in winter, that forced me to shorten my stride which in turn leads to faster cadence. Check how far forward your front leg extends, it shouldn't go much beyond your hip. It takes a bit of practice but your body will thank you.
1 -
Coincidentally I turned my attention to cadence just this week as I have my first 10k coming up on Thanksgiving day and I am looking for ways to make it suck less. I can run a 5k, and I've done 10k distance on the treadmill a fair few times but outside not so much.0
-
MelanieCN77 wrote: »Coincidentally I turned my attention to cadence just this week as I have my first 10k coming up on Thanksgiving day and I am looking for ways to make it suck less. I can run a 5k, and I've done 10k distance on the treadmill a fair few times but outside not so much.
Try, if possible, to get a few 8 to 10K runs outside before race day as it's quite different feeling that the treadmill.
I'm nit sure I'd be tinkering with something as fundamental as cadence less than a month out from a race. If you want it to suck less (every runners goal) try to relax and enjoy the run, as your first 10K your only goal is to finish with a smile on your face. No matter what it will be a PR and then start thinking about how to improve for the future.3 -
I looked at my cadence on my watch for my last 10 or so runs and I'm consistent at 168spm with the exception of a couple of runs!1
-
OldAssDude wrote: »I have been running for going on a year now, and i think my best mile pace is something like 10:15 (running the entire mile). I know that's not good, but when i first started running i could only run for about 30 seconds. I can run 5 miles non stop now, but my average pace for 5 miles is 14:00 to 15:00. I also do a lot of intervals, sprinting as the run interval (30 to 120 seconds) and power walking as the active rest interval (120 to 240 seconds), and i have hit paces of between 6:00 and 7:00 on the sprint intervals.
I know it's pathetic, but i'm 61 and still working on it.
I have been reading that you should run at a cadence of 180 no matter what pace you run at, and although i can do that at higher paces (higher for me), trying to do it on my long runs (5 miles at 14:00 to 15:00) just feels awkward and unnatural.
I have also read that the cadence rule of 180 is geared more toward Olympic runners and not regular people.
When i am doing my long runs, my cadence is usually between 150 and 160 for it to feel natural to me.
Not sure what is right and what is not, and could probably use some pointers from "real runners".
thanks in advance,
The research on the 180spm ideal is quite limited in applicability. It was based on a very narrow set of subjects and in a track context.
From a coaching perspective, the key points from that are around aiming for a consistency of cadence, rather than an ideal figure. So speed becomes dictated by the strength of the push off phase of the cycle, with the length of pace being the key point.
From a personal perspective my cadence is normally stable at around 168-172 SPM, but my pace length can range from 1m-2m per step.
That's all a contribution to the idea that higher cadence can help reduce stress on the lower leg, but it's very dependent on glute strength.
1 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »Coincidentally I turned my attention to cadence just this week as I have my first 10k coming up on Thanksgiving day and I am looking for ways to make it suck less. I can run a 5k, and I've done 10k distance on the treadmill a fair few times but outside not so much.
Try, if possible, to get a few 8 to 10K runs outside before race day as it's quite different feeling that the treadmill.
I'm nit sure I'd be tinkering with something as fundamental as cadence less than a month out from a race. If you want it to suck less (every runners goal) try to relax and enjoy the run, as your first 10K your only goal is to finish with a smile on your face. No matter what it will be a PR and then start thinking about how to improve for the future.
Thanks. My main focus is on distances the next few weeks, and I will go easy on the tinkering. I am trail running 5-6 miles most weekends but there's more walking in trail running than road running haha... so yeah just looking to overcome the mental fatigue you get when you can't get comfortable. I've never been a technical runner, figured it wouldn't be a bad thing to take a closer look at my habits and form.0 -
Oh and I did four miles comfortably this morning 0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »The research on the 180spm ideal is quite limited in applicability. It was based on a very narrow set of subjects and in a track context.
IMHO limited is overstating it. It's all but worthless. It's not any kind of study, but anecdotal evidence from a single coach on their athletes.
I have an average cadence of 158. I can run 5 minute miles or 9 minute miles and I'll have an average cadence of 158 steps0 -
Ok. Here is a run i did today...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3126848517
I walked the first third of a mile to warm up, the ran the rest at a slow pace. At first i tried to control my cadence (set up a cadence/pace data screen on my Garmin) at a certain pace. It felt awkward so i just ran at a comfortable cadence and pace that felt natural, and observed as i went. Seems like i feel comfortable and natural at about 150 to 160 at a 14:00 to 15:00 pace.
My heart rate and breathing felt fine too, and i felt like i could have gone for quite a while like that.
My MHR according to the 220-age formula should be 159 (220 - 61), but i have got my HR up to 165 several times using a chest strap monitor, so i have my MHR set to 165.
Feel free to analyse my data and add some pointers.
Keep in mind that i'm just an OldAssDude trying to improve my fitness.
And less than a year ago, i could only run for 30 seconds.
0 -
OldAssDude wrote: »Ok. Here is a run i did today...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3126848517
I walked the first third of a mile to warm up, the ran the rest at a slow pace. At first i tried to control my cadence (set up a cadence/pace data screen on my Garmin) at a certain pace. It felt awkward so i just ran at a comfortable cadence and pace that felt natural, and observed as i went. Seems like i feel comfortable and natural at about 150 to 160 at a 14:00 to 15:00 pace.
My heart rate and breathing felt fine too, and i felt like i could have gone for quite a while like that.
My MHR according to the 220-age formula should be 159 (220 - 61), but i have got my HR up to 165 several times using a chest strap monitor, so i have my MHR set to 165.
Feel free to analyse my data and add some pointers.
Keep in mind that i'm just an OldAssDude trying to improve my fitness.
And less than a year ago, i could only run for 30 seconds.
My analysis is that you're over thinking it!5 -
OldAssDude wrote: »Ok. Here is a run i did today...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3126848517
I walked the first third of a mile to warm up, the ran the rest at a slow pace. At first i tried to control my cadence (set up a cadence/pace data screen on my Garmin) at a certain pace. It felt awkward so i just ran at a comfortable cadence and pace that felt natural, and observed as i went. Seems like i feel comfortable and natural at about 150 to 160 at a 14:00 to 15:00 pace.
My heart rate and breathing felt fine too, and i felt like i could have gone for quite a while like that.
My MHR according to the 220-age formula should be 159 (220 - 61), but i have got my HR up to 165 several times using a chest strap monitor, so i have my MHR set to 165.
Feel free to analyse my data and add some pointers.
Keep in mind that i'm just an OldAssDude trying to improve my fitness.
And less than a year ago, i could only run for 30 seconds.
My advice?
Do you have actual health reasons for needing a certain heart rate? Any cardiac history?
If not, why not just try running, without over analyzing the data?
I'll share the best advice that I got from one of my running and drinking buddies: Running becomes a lot more fun when you don't give a rat's *kitten* about the details or pace.
If you want to focus on improving your running, just run.
What is the benefit to your training or weight loss from overanalyzing details that make little to no difference in amateur-level performance?3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »Ok. Here is a run i did today...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3126848517
I walked the first third of a mile to warm up, the ran the rest at a slow pace. At first i tried to control my cadence (set up a cadence/pace data screen on my Garmin) at a certain pace. It felt awkward so i just ran at a comfortable cadence and pace that felt natural, and observed as i went. Seems like i feel comfortable and natural at about 150 to 160 at a 14:00 to 15:00 pace.
My heart rate and breathing felt fine too, and i felt like i could have gone for quite a while like that.
My MHR according to the 220-age formula should be 159 (220 - 61), but i have got my HR up to 165 several times using a chest strap monitor, so i have my MHR set to 165.
Feel free to analyse my data and add some pointers.
Keep in mind that i'm just an OldAssDude trying to improve my fitness.
And less than a year ago, i could only run for 30 seconds.
My analysis is that you're over thinking it!
Thank you. That was helpful. 0 -
collectingblues wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »Ok. Here is a run i did today...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3126848517
I walked the first third of a mile to warm up, the ran the rest at a slow pace. At first i tried to control my cadence (set up a cadence/pace data screen on my Garmin) at a certain pace. It felt awkward so i just ran at a comfortable cadence and pace that felt natural, and observed as i went. Seems like i feel comfortable and natural at about 150 to 160 at a 14:00 to 15:00 pace.
My heart rate and breathing felt fine too, and i felt like i could have gone for quite a while like that.
My MHR according to the 220-age formula should be 159 (220 - 61), but i have got my HR up to 165 several times using a chest strap monitor, so i have my MHR set to 165.
Feel free to analyse my data and add some pointers.
Keep in mind that i'm just an OldAssDude trying to improve my fitness.
And less than a year ago, i could only run for 30 seconds.
My advice?
Do you have actual health reasons for needing a certain heart rate? Any cardiac history?
If not, why not just try running, without over analyzing the data?
I'll share the best advice that I got from one of my running and drinking buddies: Running becomes a lot more fun when you don't give a rat's *kitten* about the details or pace.
If you want to focus on improving your running, just run.
What is the benefit to your training or weight loss from overanalyzing details that make little to no difference in amateur-level performance?
hey, i'm just looking to be able to do longer slower runs at a pace/cadence/HR that i can sustain without fizzling out.
There is no need to point out that my performance is amateur-level. I think that's already apparent, and i'm making an effort to improve that.
didn't you have to work at it, and learn stuff?
Or were you born an athlete?1 -
OldAssDude wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »Ok. Here is a run i did today...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3126848517
I walked the first third of a mile to warm up, the ran the rest at a slow pace. At first i tried to control my cadence (set up a cadence/pace data screen on my Garmin) at a certain pace. It felt awkward so i just ran at a comfortable cadence and pace that felt natural, and observed as i went. Seems like i feel comfortable and natural at about 150 to 160 at a 14:00 to 15:00 pace.
My heart rate and breathing felt fine too, and i felt like i could have gone for quite a while like that.
My MHR according to the 220-age formula should be 159 (220 - 61), but i have got my HR up to 165 several times using a chest strap monitor, so i have my MHR set to 165.
Feel free to analyse my data and add some pointers.
Keep in mind that i'm just an OldAssDude trying to improve my fitness.
And less than a year ago, i could only run for 30 seconds.
My analysis is that you're over thinking it!
Thank you. That was helpful.
You say in your post below that you want to do a longer slower run, so do just that...
The best way to get better at running is to run more
:drinker: 2 -
OldAssDude wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »Ok. Here is a run i did today...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3126848517
I walked the first third of a mile to warm up, the ran the rest at a slow pace. At first i tried to control my cadence (set up a cadence/pace data screen on my Garmin) at a certain pace. It felt awkward so i just ran at a comfortable cadence and pace that felt natural, and observed as i went. Seems like i feel comfortable and natural at about 150 to 160 at a 14:00 to 15:00 pace.
My heart rate and breathing felt fine too, and i felt like i could have gone for quite a while like that.
My MHR according to the 220-age formula should be 159 (220 - 61), but i have got my HR up to 165 several times using a chest strap monitor, so i have my MHR set to 165.
Feel free to analyse my data and add some pointers.
Keep in mind that i'm just an OldAssDude trying to improve my fitness.
And less than a year ago, i could only run for 30 seconds.
My advice?
Do you have actual health reasons for needing a certain heart rate? Any cardiac history?
If not, why not just try running, without over analyzing the data?
I'll share the best advice that I got from one of my running and drinking buddies: Running becomes a lot more fun when you don't give a rat's *kitten* about the details or pace.
If you want to focus on improving your running, just run.
What is the benefit to your training or weight loss from overanalyzing details that make little to no difference in amateur-level performance?
hey, i'm just looking to be able to do longer slower runs at a pace/cadence/HR that i can sustain without fizzling out.
There is no need to point out that my performance is amateur-level. I think that's already apparent, and i'm making an effort to improve that.
didn't you have to work at it, and learn stuff?
Or were you born an athlete?
We're *all* amateur level here. Unless we have an elite in our midst who hasn't fessed up, it's an accurate assessment for 95-99 percent of the people on the forum.
There's no need to get defensive simply because someone points out that you're not an elite.
What I'm saying is that unless you are elite, you stand very little to gain, performancewise, by obsessing over the details to the level that you are. And that's said by the woman who just realized that she can predict a race pace by averaging all of the total run paces in the six weeks leading up to a race. And calculated it back for almost every race I've done.
Want to be a better runner? Run more. Worry less.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions