180 steps/min running cadence mp3

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by [email protected], Aug 25, 2004.

  1. After an exhaustive 5 minute google search, I couldn't find an MP3 of
    a 180 steps/min beat. So for your listening pleasure, I generated
    some with Audacity and ran with it this morning. It's not exactly
    Rachmaninov, but in the extremely remote case anyone is interested:

    http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-1min.mp3 234Kb
    http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-5min.mp3 1.2Mb
    http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-10min.mp3 2.3Mb
    http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-20min.mp3 4.7Mb
    http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-40min.mp3 9.4Mb

    They're all at 32Kbps/22kHz/Mono.

    Paul
     
    Tags:


  2. Earl Lewis

    Earl Lewis Guest

    On 25 Aug 2004 22:21:03 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >After an exhaustive 5 minute google search, I couldn't find an MP3 of
    >a 180 steps/min beat. So for your listening pleasure, I generated
    >some with Audacity and ran with it this morning. It's not exactly
    >Rachmaninov, but in the extremely remote case anyone is interested:
    >
    >http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-1min.mp3 234Kb
    >http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-5min.mp3 1.2Mb
    >http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-10min.mp3 2.3Mb
    >http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-20min.mp3 4.7Mb
    >http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-40min.mp3 9.4Mb
    >
    >They're all at 32Kbps/22kHz/Mono.
    >
    >Paul


    I could not reach your site. I'm in New York, USA.

    However, 180 steps/minute is the US Army double-time march, aka
    airborne shuffle. 120 is quick march. I'm sure you all wanted to know
    that.
    Earl
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>, Earl Lewis wrote:
    > On 25 Aug 2004 22:21:03 GMT, [email protected] wrote:


    >>http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-1min.mp3 234Kb


    > I could not reach your site. I'm in New York, USA.


    Can't explain that. It is definitely reachable from elsewhere.

    > However, 180 steps/minute is the US Army double-time march, aka
    > airborne shuffle. 120 is quick march. I'm sure you all wanted to know
    > that.


    Interesting. That might give me a clue for some more targetted searching.

    Paul
     
  4. >but in the extremely remote case anyone is interested:

    You idiot.
     
  5. HardwareLust

    HardwareLust Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > After an exhaustive 5 minute google search, I couldn't find an MP3 of
    > a 180 steps/min beat. So for your listening pleasure, I generated
    > some with Audacity and ran with it this morning. It's not exactly
    > Rachmaninov, but in the extremely remote case anyone is interested:
    >
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-1min.mp3 234Kb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-5min.mp3 1.2Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-10min.mp3 2.3Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-20min.mp3 4.7Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-40min.mp3 9.4Mb
    >
    > They're all at 32Kbps/22kHz/Mono.
    >
    > Paul


    Interesting. It's kind of hypnotic. I'm going to give it a go on the road
    tomorrow.

    The cool thing is my Mp3 player has adjustable speed, so I can slow it down
    to 75% or speed it up to 150%. That should be interesting.

    Thanks for sharing.

    Regards,
    H.
     
  6. gym gravity

    gym gravity Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > After an exhaustive 5 minute google search, I couldn't find an MP3 of
    > a 180 steps/min beat. So for your listening pleasure, I generated
    > some with Audacity and ran with it this morning. It's not exactly
    > Rachmaninov, but in the extremely remote case anyone is interested:
    >
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-1min.mp3 234Kb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-5min.mp3 1.2Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-10min.mp3 2.3Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-20min.mp3 4.7Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-40min.mp3 9.4Mb
    >
    > They're all at 32Kbps/22kHz/Mono.
    >
    > Paul


    How about some tunes with 90 bpm? That should work too.
     
  7. Paul,
    We are recruiting athletes for our study that train while listening to
    portable Mp3, ipod or CD players

    Please consider joining our study: "Endurance athlete's ability to
    detect and adjust running pace to specifically composed music."

    All athletic abilities are welcome of any age. We are accepting
    runners from any location worldwide.

    There are no costs to participate. You can complete the 15 minute
    exercise during one of your training runs. The online survey should
    only take about 5 minutes.

    Please visit our group page for more information @
    http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/testtuneusers/

    *Forwarded this to anyone you think may be interested.

    Thanks!



    [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > After an exhaustive 5 minute google search, I couldn't find an MP3 of
    > a 180 steps/min beat. So for your listening pleasure, I generated
    > some with Audacity and ran with it this morning. It's not exactly
    > Rachmaninov, but in the extremely remote case anyone is interested:
    >
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-1min.mp3 234Kb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-5min.mp3 1.2Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-10min.mp3 2.3Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-20min.mp3 4.7Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-40min.mp3 9.4Mb
    >
    > They're all at 32Kbps/22kHz/Mono.
    >
    > Paul
     
  8. In article <[email protected]>, John Macgowan wrote:
    > We are recruiting athletes for our study that train while listening to
    > portable Mp3, ipod or CD players


    Heh. My trollometer went off the scale when I read that and was expecting
    Bill Rogers or runners for bush in the From: line...

    Looks real though :)

    Paul
     
  9. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > After an exhaustive 5 minute google search, I couldn't find an MP3 of
    > a 180 steps/min beat. So for your listening pleasure, I generated
    > some with Audacity and ran with it this morning. It's not exactly
    > Rachmaninov, but in the extremely remote case anyone is interested:
    >
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-1min.mp3 234Kb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-5min.mp3 1.2Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-10min.mp3 2.3Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-20min.mp3 4.7Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-40min.mp3 9.4Mb
    >
    > They're all at 32Kbps/22kHz/Mono.
    >
    > Paul


    Please excuse the ignorance, I am still new to running (about 10 mos).
    Why would you worry about your cadence so much? Shouldn't you
    just run to a level that feels good? Is it to improve speed?
    Please enlighten me..
    HM
     
  10. Dot

    Dot Guest

    Herman Munster wrote:

    > Please excuse the ignorance, I am still new to running (about 10 mos).
    > Why would you worry about your cadence so much? Shouldn't you
    > just run to a level that feels good? Is it to improve speed?
    > Please enlighten me..


    Reduces impact of running. Most beginners run with a slow cadence, maybe
    around 160-170 footfalls / min, although it varies. Increasing cadence
    to 180 footfalls/min, reduces your airborne time and hence impact.

    But if you have a slow cadence, you might want to be careful about how
    abruptly you change. Some people have been known to injure themselves
    (I'm still not sure how), but others, like myself, find the change such
    an improvement that it happens within a few days. I find I might be a
    little slower on trails (but never below 170 anytime that I've counted,
    usually in high 170s). Even on good snow with snowshoes I'm in the 170s
    range.

    Do a google search on the group for cadence and 180 or "running
    lightly". There's tons of threads.

    Dot

    --
    "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
    away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
     
  11. In article <[email protected]>, Herman Munster wrote:
    > Please excuse the ignorance, I am still new to running (about 10 mos).
    > Why would you worry about your cadence so much? Shouldn't you
    > just run to a level that feels good? Is it to improve speed?


    It seems I've heard it and read it a lot. Let's have a look around
    google:

    http://www.biyee.net/running/form.htm

    "Daniels observed that elite runners tend to have the same high cadence
    (180 or more steps/min) and suggest to ask athletes to intentionally
    increase their cadences to this level (Daniels, 1998)."

    http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/economy.htm

    "If you are like an elite athlete you will find that your stride rate
    is 90 or more per minute (180 steps) and is similar for various speeds."

    http://rungearrun.com/resources/cadence.php

    "Interestingly enough, however, observational research has shown that a
    runner's cadence is the least variable of these and most elite runners
    maintain a cadence of 85-95 regardless of pace or distance of the event. "

    http://www.latriclub.com/library/article.cfm?aid=75

    "180 steps per minute: Small stride length can result in faster times
    and fewer injuries."

    http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/running/4074

    "He indicated that a well known coach who he quoted from a running
    magazine, indicated that you should use 180-190 steps per minute
    no matter what pace you are running. This running coach is correct in
    some respects. 180-190 spm only applies to elite runners and athletes
    who are capable of sustaining 5+ minute miles for a 26+ mile marathon."

    http://www.coolrunning.com/major/97/training/hamp0205.htm

    "Observational research indicates that elite runners in distance events
    (800m to marathon) strike the ground with 180-200 steps per minute. Check
    your stride rate the next time you run by counting how many footfalls
    you take in one minute. If your rate is currently less than 180, you
    may benefit by making a conscious effort to increase your cadence."

    Interesting reading:
    http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0122.htm

    So in summary, it seems that elite athletes typically run at 180 steps
    per minute or above. Does that mean us far less than elite athletes should?
    Dunno, haven't found that on google yet :)

    Paul
     
  12. In article <[email protected]>,
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"... 180-190 spm only applies to elite runners and athletes
    >who are capable of sustaining 5+ minute miles for a 26+ mile marathon."

    ....
    >So in summary, it seems that elite athletes typically run at 180 steps
    >per minute or above. Does that mean us far less than elite athletes should?


    Good question. In my "sample-size-of-one" testing (e.g. on myself), I've
    found that increasing my long slow run cadence to from 160-170 ffpm to
    180 ffpm seems to help (or at least doesn't hurt) my running efficiency
    (heart rate and perceived leg fatigue) even at paces down to about
    9:45 min/mile.

    But even after several months of practicing running with a 180+ ffpm
    cadence, it still doesn't seem natural to me at slow running paces,
    although my "natural" cadence (e.g. when I'm not thinking about cadence)
    does seem to have increased by maybe +5 ffpm, and even when running at
    faster paces.

    I haven't yet seen a post on rec.running from someone who claimed that
    slowing down their cadence to below 180 ffpm was a benefit for them.

    BTW, an alternative to a 180 ffpm mp3 would be something with a 90
    cpm tempo. I usually alternate between counting or syncing left foot
    cycles and right foot cycles every half mile or so.


    IMHO. YMMV.
    --
    Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
    #include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
     
  13. tednat

    tednat Guest

    http://www.mensamagazine.gr/Hellas/ButterflyTouThodorouNatsina.html

    A butterfly 100m below Leoforos Marathonos, where will take place the
    Marathon run...


    [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Herman Munster wrote:
    > > Please excuse the ignorance, I am still new to running (about 10 mos).
    > > Why would you worry about your cadence so much? Shouldn't you
    > > just run to a level that feels good? Is it to improve speed?

    >
    > It seems I've heard it and read it a lot. Let's have a look around
    > google:
    >
    > http://www.biyee.net/running/form.htm
    >
    > "Daniels observed that elite runners tend to have the same high cadence
    > (180 or more steps/min) and suggest to ask athletes to intentionally
    > increase their cadences to this level (Daniels, 1998)."
    >
    > http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/economy.htm
    >
    > "If you are like an elite athlete you will find that your stride rate
    > is 90 or more per minute (180 steps) and is similar for various speeds."
    >
    > http://rungearrun.com/resources/cadence.php
    >
    > "Interestingly enough, however, observational research has shown that a
    > runner's cadence is the least variable of these and most elite runners
    > maintain a cadence of 85-95 regardless of pace or distance of the event. "
    >
    > http://www.latriclub.com/library/article.cfm?aid=75
    >
    > "180 steps per minute: Small stride length can result in faster times
    > and fewer injuries."
    >
    > http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/running/4074
    >
    > "He indicated that a well known coach who he quoted from a running
    > magazine, indicated that you should use 180-190 steps per minute
    > no matter what pace you are running. This running coach is correct in
    > some respects. 180-190 spm only applies to elite runners and athletes
    > who are capable of sustaining 5+ minute miles for a 26+ mile marathon."
    >
    > http://www.coolrunning.com/major/97/training/hamp0205.htm
    >
    > "Observational research indicates that elite runners in distance events
    > (800m to marathon) strike the ground with 180-200 steps per minute. Check
    > your stride rate the next time you run by counting how many footfalls
    > you take in one minute. If your rate is currently less than 180, you
    > may benefit by making a conscious effort to increase your cadence."
    >
    > Interesting reading:
    > http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0122.htm
    >
    > So in summary, it seems that elite athletes typically run at 180 steps
    > per minute or above. Does that mean us far less than elite athletes should?
    > Dunno, haven't found that on google yet :)
    >
    > Paul
     
  14. Jane

    Jane Guest

    I'm a slow runner. I did a half marathon in the spring at just under 2:06.
    What I have already discovered from this group is that I was doing most of
    my training runs too fast and I'd often burn out by the end of the run. My
    body really wants to go at a pace that I can't sustain. So I've recently
    tried to slow my pace in training. Using a pace calculator most of my runs
    should be around 6:50 min. per km. I set my Garmin to warn me if I go
    below a 6:30 pace. It's been challenging to go that slow.

    Today I decided to throw 180 steps per minute into the mix. I increased my
    cadence and decreased my stride. I had to take very, very small steps to
    keep within the proper pace and, even so, my Garmin was constantly beeping
    at me. Funny thing was, I checked cadence a few times in the run and I was
    dead on 180 every time. It felt much more natural to me than the slower
    cadence. The stride was a little wierd though.

    Given the difficulty I had keeping the slower pace at that cadence - I
    wonder which I should compromise on for best results. Should I go a faster
    pace and keep the 180 cadence or slow the cadence a bit? Or, would a HRM
    be a better way to set my pace?

    Thanks for any insights.
     
  15. On 2004-08-27, Jane <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Today I decided to throw 180 steps per minute into the mix. I increased my
    > cadence and decreased my stride. I had to take very, very small steps to
    > keep within the proper pace and, even so, my Garmin was constantly beeping
    > at me. Funny thing was, I checked cadence a few times in the run and I was
    > dead on 180 every time. It felt much more natural to me than the slower
    > cadence. The stride was a little wierd though.


    Your cadence will be a little slower than 180/min if your pace is much below
    10 minutes per mile. 6:30/km is about 10:30/mile, so expect a slower cadence.

    This is not something to be worried about. At higher speeds, a lower cadence
    is a result of greater vertical motion (bounding) which is what you're trying
    to avoid. But as your pace gets slower, you can keep one foot on the ground
    most of or all of the time (sort of like shuffling -- slightly slower cadence,
    but very little vertical motion)

    > Given the difficulty I had keeping the slower pace at that cadence - I
    > wonder which I should compromise on for best results. Should I go a faster
    > pace and keep the 180 cadence or slow the cadence a bit?


    Slow the pace. Don't worry too much about doing exactly 180/min. However, your
    cadence should drift towards 180/min without too uch conscious effort as you
    get closer to 6min/km.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  16. Dot

    Dot Guest

    Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
    > On 2004-08-27, Jane <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Today I decided to throw 180 steps per minute into the mix. I increased my
    >>cadence and decreased my stride. I had to take very, very small steps to
    >>keep within the proper pace and, even so, my Garmin was constantly beeping
    >>at me. Funny thing was, I checked cadence a few times in the run and I was
    >>dead on 180 every time. It felt much more natural to me than the slower
    >>cadence. The stride was a little wierd though.

    >
    >
    > Your cadence will be a little slower than 180/min if your pace is much below
    > 10 minutes per mile. 6:30/km is about 10:30/mile, so expect a slower cadence.
    >


    Why? - unless by a "little slower" you mean like 175, which I consider
    almost within measurement error. As usual, I don't think pace has much
    to do with anything - except how fast you get between points ;) I would
    agree not to worry about hitting exactly 180; 175's probably close enough.

    It's just a matter of taking small steps. Many of us can maintain that
    cadence (or close to it, allowing for trail conditions) across a wide
    range of paces (probably 10-20 min/mi, in my case, keeping in mind, my
    distances are approximations). When I've checked, I'm usually around
    175-180. And that includes snowshoe running on good surfaces. Rough or
    muddy trails, deep snow, etc *will* slow it since extracting foot on
    each step is a hassle.

    I might argue that cadence, at least for beginners, *increases* with
    slower pace, unless walking - consider running up 30+% slopes on trails.
    We just don't get that much distance on one step on those kinds of
    slopes, resulting in a rapid cadence, but slow pace and high hr. I
    couldn't count it at the time, I was too busy focusing on running and
    wasn't going to look at watch to see when a minute was up. One of the
    mountain runners (national class) I saw recently also seemed to have
    very quick, small steps on hills.

    At least when I was on roads, my cadence was reliable enough to use as a
    timer for fartleks - 90 footfalls of one foot = 1 min. Road paces were
    probably around 12-15 min/mile (mostly in winter, dark).

    Dot

    --
    "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
    away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
     
  17. Amal Shookup

    Amal Shookup Guest

    [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > After an exhaustive 5 minute google search, I couldn't find an MP3 of
    > a 180 steps/min beat. So for your listening pleasure, I generated
    > some with Audacity and ran with it this morning. It's not exactly
    > Rachmaninov, but in the extremely remote case anyone is interested:
    >
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-1min.mp3 234Kb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-5min.mp3 1.2Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-10min.mp3 2.3Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-20min.mp3 4.7Mb
    > http://www.sbrk.co.uk:9080/cadence_180-40min.mp3 9.4Mb
    >
    > They're all at 32Kbps/22kHz/Mono.
    >
    > Paul


    Creative idea. I think the downbeat would be distracting for me,
    though. I aim for three evenly spaced steps per second (triplets, if
    you will), which adds up to 180 steps/min.

    -p
     
  18. Phil M.

    Phil M. Guest

    Dot <[email protected]#duh?att.net> wrote:

    > I might argue that cadence, at least for beginners, *increases* with
    > slower pace, unless walking - consider running up 30+% slopes on trails.
    > We just don't get that much distance on one step on those kinds of
    > slopes, resulting in a rapid cadence, but slow pace and high hr.


    I'm curious. Have you checked your cadence while descending a 30% slope?
    While running downhill I try to keep the same fast cadence in order to
    avoid overstriding and constant braking. I think Oz refers to it as
    "putting your foot down quickly." However, running down a 30% slope is hard
    for me to imagine. I run down 7% slopes and sometimes feel out of control,
    especially if I'm trying to maintain threshold effort.

    Phil M.

    --
    "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make
    them all yourself." ­Martin Vanbee
     
  19. On 2004-08-27, Dot <[email protected]#duh?att.net> wrote:
    > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
    >> On 2004-08-27, Jane <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Today I decided to throw 180 steps per minute into the mix. I increased my
    >>>cadence and decreased my stride. I had to take very, very small steps to
    >>>keep within the proper pace and, even so, my Garmin was constantly beeping
    >>>at me. Funny thing was, I checked cadence a few times in the run and I was
    >>>dead on 180 every time. It felt much more natural to me than the slower
    >>>cadence. The stride was a little wierd though.

    >>
    >>
    >> Your cadence will be a little slower than 180/min if your pace is much below
    >> 10 minutes per mile. 6:30/km is about 10:30/mile, so expect a slower cadence.
    >>

    >
    > Why?


    Because that happens to be what is most efficient. Most runners *do* chose a
    slightly slower cadence at slower paces, and they do this because it is *more
    efficient*.

    My question to you would be, *why not* ?

    The supposed premise, that there is excessive vertical motion with lower
    cadences, simply doesn't apply if one of your feet is on the ground for
    most of the time.

    > - unless by a "little slower" you mean like 175, which I consider
    > almost within measurement error.


    Could be slower than that.

    > As usual, I don't think pace has much
    > to do with anything -


    But it does. Below a sufficiently slow pace, it becomes inefficient to have
    both feet off the ground at the same time -- because this results in that
    boogeyman called, repeat after me, vertical motion! That's why walking at 3mph
    is more economical than running at 3mph. At slow paces like 5mph, it is more
    economical to do a sort of shuffle-run.

    > It's just a matter of taking small steps.


    I realise that it's possible to take small steps. I'm disputing that it's always
    desirable to do so.

    > I might argue that cadence, at least for beginners, *increases* with
    > slower pace, unless walking - consider running up 30+% slopes on trails.


    I'm not talking about running up 30% grades. Though I'd argue that for most
    beginners, it's more economical to walk up such a grade (and the cadence for
    walking *is* less than 180!)

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
Loading...
Loading...