Effective Running technique??

CarsonRuns

180 is a standard for optimal running cadence. google "running steps per minute" and you'll see the amount of information that comes up pointed at 180.

The 180 cadence initially comes from studies done on marathon runners. It was found that the top marathoners had a 180 cadence, whereas many recreational and casual marathon runners had a much lower 120-130 cadence. Therefore it was deduced that 180 is the optimal long distance running cadence and many people started trying to increase their cadence to 180. However, the 180 cadence is likely a function of the top marathon runner's speeds. They do 5 minute miles.

Again, turnover rate is independent of pace.

It's far more complicated than that.

Isn't everything?

But your statement that "...the 180 cadence is likely a function of the top marathon runner's speeds. They do 5 minute miles." is erroneous. The 180 turnover is not a product of the 5:00 mile, because, as I have stated twice now, turnover is independent of pace. I know this from personal experience, anecdotes and from knowledge gleaned from many respected sources of running information.

714rah714

Run long enough and your body will figure out what works best for you.

ChristinaBarnhouse

BUMP

I was wondering the same thing! I ran a 5K over the weekend. The entire run, I landed on the ball of my foot instead of my heel. My run was very good, however these past few days, my ankles and lower legs are so sore!! Was this the right thing to do??

Thanks for all the tips!

tappae

Again, turnover rate is independent of pace.

It's far more complicated than that.

Isn't everything?

But your statement that "...the 180 cadence is likely a function of the top marathon runner's speeds. They do 5 minute miles." is erroneous. The 180 turnover is not a product of the 5:00 mile, because, as I have stated twice now, turnover is independent of pace. I know this from personal experience, anecdotes and from knowledge gleaned from many respected sources of running information.

Yeah, turnover is definitely independent of pace. If you try and change your speed just by changing how fast your legs are moving, you're limiting yourself to pretty small range. At slower speeds, you'll be using your legs too much by supporting your weight for too long at a time. At higher speeds you'll also be using your legs too much by moving them too fast. It took me a while to be able to run my slowest pace (12:00 per mile) at 170 steps per minute. Now, I'm working on the opposite end. When I do my speed work, I have a tendency to move my legs faster. I burn out quickly and don't end up going much faster than if I keep my stride rate the same and concentrate on my form. Of course, moving up to 180 might be okay.

muddyventures

Run long enough and your body will figure out what works best for you.

I like this, I think we should enjoy it.. find out what is working for you and you will improve. Listening to our bodies is important!

bruceinthepit88

First, nobody advocates landing on the toes. They do advocate a forefoot (ball of the foot) landing. Even that appears very close to a flat foot landing. If you follow their foot through it's cycle on the ground, it makes contact ball - heel - ball.

Actually what I meant was the forefoot (the ball of the foot) not toes exactly. Sorry my bad. But thanks a lot for the advice. And thanks to everyone who shared their opinions. There is a wealth of information here for people to get better. All the best everyone !

Run Run Run !

scottb81

BUMP

I was wondering the same thing! I ran a 5K over the weekend. The entire run, I landed on the ball of my foot instead of my heel. My run was very good, however these past few days, my ankles and lower legs are so sore!! Was this the right thing to do??

Thanks for all the tips!

Its normal to be sore if you don't normally run that way. I changed my form last year to always have a fore/midfoot landing. It took the better part of a year before all the soreness was gone. Eventually though everything strengthened and now I can run that way all the time without pain or soreness. Additionally, my knee pain was eliminated. So, a net positive overall.

Also, contrary to what many say, it is possible to retrain your body to a new norm. When I first started running this way I was a heel striker and the new form felt weird. Now I cannot heel strike even if I try - my body has forgotten how to do it and it feels entirely un-natural.

Happylady123

bump

Priincess_Natalie

bump

ahamm002

180 is a standard for optimal running cadence. google "running steps per minute" and you'll see the amount of information that comes up pointed at 180.

The 180 cadence initially comes from studies done on marathon runners. It was found that the top marathoners had a 180 cadence, whereas many recreational and casual marathon runners had a much lower 120-130 cadence. Therefore it was deduced that 180 is the optimal long distance running cadence and many people started trying to increase their cadence to 180. However, the 180 cadence is likely a function of the top marathon runner's speeds. They do 5 minute miles.

Again, turnover rate is independent of pace.

It's far more complicated than that.

Isn't everything?

But your statement that "...the 180 cadence is likely a function of the top marathon runner's speeds. They do 5 minute miles." is erroneous. The 180 turnover is not a product of the 5:00 mile, because, as I have stated twice now, turnover is independent of pace. I know this from personal experience, anecdotes and from knowledge gleaned from many respected sources of running information.

Of course turnover *can be* independent of pace if you intentionally always run at the same cadence and only change your stride. That doesn't mean it's natural, nor does it mean that a casual runner should aim for a 180 cadence if they're comfortable at 130. I've already explained where the 180 number comes from. If you have any real evidence that demonstrates that casual runners will benefit by increasing their cadence I'd love to see it.

I've seen this topic discussed over in the runnerworld forums a few times, and so far I havent' seen anything that proves casual runners would benefit from increasing cadence.

JNick77

Hey guys,

Just wanted to clear up a few things regarding the proper running technique. I have read on the web that the right way is to not land on the heels (so that the whole body and the hip does not take the shock) and instead to land on the toes so that the spring action of the ankles absorb the shock.

Is this the general consensus? A few of us are interested to know more. Appreciate your thoughts.

Cheers !

P.S: Also, landing on the toes also gets a little painful after a while, since the ankle joint is also taking a sort of hit. Is this a good trade-off or would that also have long term effects?

Not at all. Go to YouTube and do a search on running form and you'll catch videos on good and bad form. Me personally I get horrible shin splints from running on my toes and I've learned to land more balanced about mid-foot.

mlb929

I'm a ChiRunner - Look for the book ChiRunning or they have a website, big fan!

CarsonRuns

180 is a standard for optimal running cadence. google "running steps per minute" and you'll see the amount of information that comes up pointed at 180.

The 180 cadence initially comes from studies done on marathon runners. It was found that the top marathoners had a 180 cadence, whereas many recreational and casual marathon runners had a much lower 120-130 cadence. Therefore it was deduced that 180 is the optimal long distance running cadence and many people started trying to increase their cadence to 180. However, the 180 cadence is likely a function of the top marathon runner's speeds. They do 5 minute miles.

Again, turnover rate is independent of pace.

It's far more complicated than that.

Isn't everything?

But your statement that "...the 180 cadence is likely a function of the top marathon runner's speeds. They do 5 minute miles." is erroneous. The 180 turnover is not a product of the 5:00 mile, because, as I have stated twice now, turnover is independent of pace. I know this from personal experience, anecdotes and from knowledge gleaned from many respected sources of running information.

Of course turnover *can be* independent of pace if you intentionally always run at the same cadence and only change your stride. That doesn't mean it's natural, nor does it mean that a casual runner should aim for a 180 cadence if they're comfortable at 130. I've already explained where the 180 number comes from. If you have any real evidence that demonstrates that casual runners will benefit by increasing their cadence I'd love to see it.

I've seen this topic discussed over in the runnerworld forums a few times, and so far I havent' seen anything that proves casual runners would benefit from increasing cadence.

Two examples, you will not be able to see. My personal experience and the experience of others whom I have mentored (for lack of a better word). The benefit that is derived from increased cadence is a decrease in the propensity to heel strike. There are many resources that will state that a mid-foot strike is the preferred foot strike because it reduces the impact on landing and it prevents the deceleration that occurs on heel strike. So, it's healthier/safer and the added benefit is the ability to run faster with the same amount of effort.

As for other advocates of 180 cadence. Jeff Galloway, Jack Daniels, and Danny Dryer (Chi Running) all advocate 180 as optimum. Others, like Tim Noakes and Bob Glover don't specifically advocate 180, but suggest using it as a target and letting the body settle in where it wants to around that range.

I am not saying that every runner should, right now, go change the way the run to hit 180 cadence. But if someone is just starting out, it's a good time to work for this goal so they are running with good form from the start. Also, if someone is having chronic lower leg pain (heel, shins, etc.), it's well worth taking a look at cadence and making a change to see if it fixes the symptoms.

Cheers.

tniemeyer

Here's how I think about it, you want to propel your body forward (your center of mass behind your belly button) so why would you want to throw your legs and feet out in front of you and put on the brakes?? To move the body forward, the legs go back. Landing on the forefoot is much easier when the feet land under the body and go back while the body falls forward.

Very well put! I've never thought about it this way but I sure will from now on. Thanks!