Effective Running technique??

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. That is, they have a high cadence b/c they are running five minute miles. They don't run five minute miles because they have a high cadence.

I'm a forefoot runner myself, however, I wasn't always this way.

I began training in June of '11 and then I ran my first two half marathons (Dec '11 and Jan '12) striking on my heel. Around the November mark, I noticed that my recovery times were taking a little longer as my training intensified (More miles = more recovery time, right?); but what troubled me was that while the muscles recovered within hours, the joints took days to feel better. So, after my second half marathon, I started investigating forefoot running and eventually decided it was worth a shot.

I began re-training myself, and once my body got used to the change, forefoot running feels completely natural to me. My joints feel much better now and my race pace has improved. If I am running and my form changes for some odd reason, i notice it immediately because the heel strike feels so foreign to me.

And for the record, you don't need to switch to minimalist shoes to be a forefoot runner. I run using Kayano 17's and GT2170's [Asics], both of which have a good sized heel on them and lots of cushioning. As long as you pay close attention to your form when you start off, you can learn to run forefoot in any shoe.

Everybody needs to run in the way that works best for them and their body... Some professional marathoners heel strike, some don't. It all depends on you.

Just as a side note though, for those that feel forefoot running is just a trend, try this little experiment. Take off your shoes, and find a nice little area to run in, be it wood, tile, grass, carpet, whatever...

Now, Run/Jog barefoot.

Most folks who do this will automatically begin running on the balls of your feet, especially if you are on harder surfaces. Why? Because the jarring sensation of your heel hitting the ground is not comfortable at all, especially if you are a larger person like me.

When you put your comfy shoes on with the nice sole and lots of cushioning, the shoe absorbs some of the impact so its easier to heel strike when you run.

[I am not knocking comfy running shoes as my current shoes are big comfy Asics]

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.

I switch it up. Sometimes as I get stronger I just feel like running on the balls of my feet. I have arthritis in my hips and this seems to help make my hips feel better. But sometimes I don't feel like it but I focus on at least rolling to the ball of the foot so that the impact isn't such a hard slam.

I have found certain weight training is making my legs strong for my runs and when I feel like going faster I tend to run on the balls of my feet too.

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

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.

bump

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.