Increasing your cadence is good practice if you're over striding but I don't know how much you should change and how long it should take to change or even if you should force it to change. I tend to look more at my average distance per stride rather than my cadence which changes depending on my pace.

Mine typically is in the mid 170s for easy runs and 180+ if I'm working harder. This was yesterday's workout.
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/709639532

I never really do any cadence drills. I just generally think about it briefly while warming up. "Take short easy quicker steps". Mostly I tend to think about foot placement and having it land under my body. Cadence seems to just happen for me when I'm getting a good landing.

ETA: Fascinating! It's pretty obvious that I was having an easier and easier time finding the pace I wanted with each passing interval. I do know that the first one felt too choppy. The second one was better when I realized that I was over striding and needed to open up behind me more and hit mid-foot underneath me. I never really pay much attention to the cadence but that's cool to see.

My cadence seems pretty similar at easy pace and at faster paces (I don't measure it normally, but whenever I count it is always 188). This means that when I run very slowly, it looks very very bouncy, like I am jumping up and down on the spot. I don't know enough about it as that's just how I run naturally, but I would be a bit wary of trying to change something about your natural running style too quickly. If you are overstriding and tending to injure yourself, maybe it needs fixing, but otherwise you might cause problems you don't currently have.

Another in the "Why fix what isn't broken" camp. If everything is going well with your running, leave the cadence alone. If you're over striding big time, then it could be something to look at otherwise you actually risk an injury as you attempt to change your biomechanics.

If your cadence is in the 160s, I'd bet you don't have proper form. Will this injure you? Probably not. Will it affect your performance and efficiency? Yep. Tall people have a lower cadence though, in my experience.

I read somewhere that runners naturally develop a more efficient stride (hence cadence) over time. I suppose it's something to be mindful of, but I agree with Lishie that if you try too hard to force it, it will drive you mad and take the joy out of running.

I also think Doug is right that taller people probably tend to have a lower cadence. I am only 5 ft tall and my normal cadence is around 192.

I always wonder with these reports on what is optimal, especially when the conclusions are based on what elite runners do, whether the elite runners are elite partly because they naturally have the biomechanics that allow them to do the optimal thing (whether it's footstrike, cadence, whatever) or whether anyone can learn or should learn those things.

I'm not remotely elite, I am an above-averagely-good-but-not-outstanding female club runner, and I am lucky enough to naturally run in a style which is considered desirable (midfoot strike, high cadence). I am not prone to overuse injuries. But I think maybe that just means I'm lucky - I've heard so many stories about people who don't naturally have those running qualities who get along just fine until they try to change something and then end up injured. And I also know plenty of runners who don't have ideal form, cadence etc. but are better runners than I am.

litsy3 wrote: »

I always wonder with these reports on what is optimal, especially when the conclusions are based on what elite runners do, whether the elite runners are elite partly because they naturally have the biomechanics that allow them to do the optimal thing (whether it's footstrike, cadence, whatever) or whether anyone can learn or should learn those things.

I am in this camp as well. What is applicable to elite runners may not apply to a recreational runner. The change in cadence with speed seems to vary a good bit between runners, even elites, as well. Some build speed more with stride length, others with step rate.

I focus on not overstriding and having my foot land under me, but not on cadence specifically. I have read several studies that show making a small deliberate increase in cadence helps correct overstriding.

@billscreen. . . you can certainly increase your stride rate. Can you increase it to 185 I doubt it. I would like you to prove this wrong though.

I believe Daniels studied Olympians in the 80's and this lead to the 180 number. I think the years of study and coaching he only had one runner under, and she was in the mid 170's. We are talking about elite runners. Recreational runners stride rate is somewhere between 150-170, I think.

One of the reasons stride rate is viewed is in part tied with the technology we wear. Do I look down at my stride rate periodically(yes) from my Garmin and I am typically more tired when I increase my rate over the same distance then when I slow it down. Is there something wrong with a runner's form if they have a low cadence. . . probably. For me, a weak core and not stretching lead to form falling apart usually at a mile marker about 80% past a normal distance. Normal distance for me is 4 miles, for many they may never experience this. So, more core work, stretching pre and post, slower and longer runs, lead to improved form and if my cadence pops up. . .super.

Proof that cadence isn't everything. This morning's run included 8 miles @ HMP. It took me a couple miles to get the pace nailed down the point that I didn't have to keep looking at the watch. The first few miles had some points over 190 and it didn't feel comfortable. I opened up the stride length a bit instead of keeping the cadence that high and then it felt really good.

Obviously there's a balance between meters per stride and stride rate. I never look at the cadence during a run. I just go off of what feels good. Keep the cadence up of course but at some point it's better to just take longer strides.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/716120254

billscreen wrote: »

Wanted to pass along a good read on this topic:

evolutionrunning.com/docs/Evolution-Running-Turnover-for-Slow-Running.pdf

Thanks for sharing this. I can run intentionally fast paces at or near this 180 step per minute turnover rate and as I've gotten better at it, I have gotten faster. However, I haven't tried to run easier runs at this turnover rate which calls for really short strides. Instead, it has been this slower turnover pace as mentioned in this article.

Today, I ran one of my easier runs at this high turnover rate by shortening the stride to maintain a low heart rate (even shorter on hills) with very little bounce. It was on one of several courses I run as an easy run with only short hill climbs (or drops). Since I run by time and (heart) pace, my timer is set in five minute increments rather than distance. So, by recent experience, I know where I usually end up at each time increment by controlling against heart rate.

So, I was really surprised by how much farther I was going in each five minute increment while keeping my heart rate down. Even as the course tilted up slightly and not so slightly, I was cruising along at a pace at least 30 seconds per mile faster than my "standard turnover pace" associated with this lower heart rate. I would typically run between 4.4 and 4.5 miles during the 45 minute out and back run. Today, I ran 4.85 miles and my average heart rate was actually lower by 3-4 bpm.

In reading the article, I may have been doing these easier runs incorrectly all this time. I'm coming up on my last marathon for the spring in three weeks, so I'm not sure how much of this I can incorporate into this upcoming race. But it will give me something to work on with my metronome over the summer and for shorter races that may be in my future.