Questions on Cadence
Options
lporter229
Posts: 4,907 Member
I have never measured my running cadence. However, my new Garmin gives me cadence information without a foot pod. First question is, does anyone know how it measures your cadence without the foot pod and how accurate is the measurement? All of my runs (have had it for 2 weeks), regardless of speed, have been 192 or 193. I have heard that 180 is optimal. Should I be trying to slow my cadence down? The only info I have been able to obtain from Google searches talks about increasing your cadence, not decreasing it. Looking for wisdom from those of you with more knowledge than me...thanks!
0
Replies
-
My 620 gets an accurate read from the watch (armswing), and a more accurate read from the HRM strap doohicky. Increased cadence = shorter stride length, and that's a good thing (more frequent but lighter impact). When you're going up and down hills, your hamstrings and quads will really appreciate it. My cadence is in the mid-180s no matter what pace0
-
I found a few more articles on cadence and it looks as though they suggest the higher the better, so I guess I am doing okay, assuming that reading is correct.0
-
I can't imagine being in the 190s on an easy run myself, I only (barely) get there when racing a 5K
0 -
Agree that you should aim for 180 or higher cadence, higher than 180 is better. Keep an eye on your stride length when Garmin measures it. You'll notice when you overstride, your cadence data will be worse. When your form is better with shorter strides, your cadence will increase. Cadence drills are helpful, too. (See how many steps you can fit in minute intervals and then keep trying to break your record with more steps.) Good luck. You're doing well if you're averaging 190s already. It's fun to surge into the 200+ zone cadence but it's hard to stay there unless you are doing random speed bursts.0
-
I did not have it for my last 5K, which is the last time I ran sub 8 pace. But of my runs so far, it has been the same for 8:20 as it is for 9:25. I guess that means that my pace is strictly dependent on stride length? I still can't wrap my head around this. I guess that's why I am suspicious of its accuracy.0
-
My 620 without footpod cadence number is around the same as my 220 with footpod number. So I'm pretty sure it's accurate.
Strangely though, I've been running with at a lower cadence lately and I feel better.. More in control and powerful. Very weird.. Not sure what it means... (Lower = 172-175 vs 182-185).
Oh, and by more powerful I mean running more with my glutes & hamstring and using less my quads... Which seems to help with my foot issues.0 -
Last year I read up on Chi running (which focuses on shorter strides but quicker cadence) to minimize overstriding & wear & tear on the knees. I worked my way into it, was able to get rid of knee pain and shin splints, but took it too far - I would easy get into the mid 190s and even 200, but my stride length was too short, typically around 1.0 meters. This year, I had an epiphany. I was doing ~7:00 miles in a 5K, and in the last mile, saw that most of those runners had longer strides and much less foot turnover than I had. And they looked relaxed doing it. So I didn't focus just on the higher turnover rate, and just let my legs go. I pulled a good ~:25 faster mile on that last mile and felt good doing it. I realized I had become so focused on quicker turnover that the stride itself didn't have much power to it because they were so short. I still use shorter strides for easy work, but let it open up a bit more when doing speed work - in the midst of intervals or a tempo run, my stride length seems to get up to 1.10 meters or so according to my Garmin 620.
So it's good to be aware of cadence but don't focus on it solely.0 -
The more I read about the relationship between cadence and stride length and speed, the more confused I become. I think it is going to be one of those parameters I just pay no attention to. Thanks for the input.0
