D
Dot
Guest
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2004-08-27, Dot <dot.h@#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*.
For you and your buddies maybe? Perhaps by "most" you're acknowledging
that not everybody does run a slower cadence at slower paces. There's
lots of evidence to suggest that the cadence stays fairly constant
across a wide range of paces. Take a look back at r.r over the past
3.5 years. You're the only one that I can remember that's made that
statement, and there's lots of other people, including slower than 10
min/mi, that are running cadence of 180 (except on some trails, deep
snow, mud, etc, or tuckered out in bad form). My point is that things
aren't as black and white as you make them sound.
In this particular case, the person found that 180 was "much more
natural to me than the slower cadence". Why would you suggest she might
want to slow the cadence down?
I think the video that somebody analyzed had some short distance (can't
remember the distance, perhaps sprint) runners with cadence above 200,
iirc. So my assumption is that really fast runners may run at a much
higher cadence than 180. Not sure what they train at. So maybe slow
runners should run at 180. Works for me.
>
> My question to you would be, *why not* ?
Because it doesn't make any sense. Why should you suggest that bumble
bees can't fly, when they clearly can. This is what many people find.
Perhaps a few outliers exceptions that probably forced something else
when they tried to switch to 180 and got injured.
>
> 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.
Ah, I'm not doing single leg squat balances while I run.
The alternative that you're missing is that you can just maintain the
same cadence at all paces - just shorten the steps.
>
>
>>- 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!
No, take smaller steps. Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. Yes,
on longer runs, it may need to slow the cadence, but that's a factor of
conditioning.
> is more economical than running at 3mph. At slow paces like 5mph, it is more
> economical to do a sort of shuffle-run.
Perhaps for you. I shuffle-run sometimes when I'm being lazy or on flat
or easy ground, but generally I have to clear roots or snow. When you
get to be twice your age, you may understand.
The relative efficiency of different forms (run or walk) of locomotion
varies among individuals, and it may vary with trained athletes compared
with sedentary (and I'm sure there's in between results for those of us
in between). (see the paper I posted a while ago on energy costs)
I will admit that I'm not sure I've ever run something completely flat
with a firm surface, so perhaps what you are saying makes sense there.
But on the terrain I run on (including the paved bike path when I used
to run that), it just doesn't hold.
>
>
>>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 agree. But some of us like to run hills - because they are there. You
may chose to use a watch to measure speed in a horizontal distance.
Others of us prefer the 3-dimensional challenge. Perhaps some day I'll
worry about vertical ft / min pace, but for now, I'm just concerned with
getting more efficient at doings things. And for me right now, I do get
better each time - whether it's inefficient or not is irrelevant.
>
>
>>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!)
>
But perhaps some of us would like to *run* 30% grades - because they are
a challenge. And by the time one gets to 30% grades (maybe a little
above), it's lower energy cost for elites to walk also. If the race is
short, they run; if it's a few hours, they walk - depends on how much
energy they can expend.
For long runs (about 1.5 hr in my case, much longer for experienced
runners), I and many experienced runners would probably walk it. But
that doesn't mean you don't run them in training to improve your hill
running. Same idea as training on longer distances than race distances -
train on steeper hills than race day. I like to challenge myself. I
recognize for you the clock on flat surfaces is the challenge. Some of
us prefer other challenges, which take just as much work.
Although one of my short races (5k, assuming not cancelled again) does
use this course, and I see no reason to walk those hills in a race of
that duration, if I have the time to train.
Now, it's also possible in my case, because of the biomechanical issues
(diagnosed by PT) I have with my feet (a result is increased time in
foot plant) and a lot of my running is on snow, I may not have developed
some mechanics. dunno. BUT, I still run a wide variety of paces at about
175-180. And my slowest paces are usually uphill or snow or dark and the
are slower cadence.
Dot
--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
> On 2004-08-27, Dot <dot.h@#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*.
For you and your buddies maybe? Perhaps by "most" you're acknowledging
that not everybody does run a slower cadence at slower paces. There's
lots of evidence to suggest that the cadence stays fairly constant
across a wide range of paces. Take a look back at r.r over the past
3.5 years. You're the only one that I can remember that's made that
statement, and there's lots of other people, including slower than 10
min/mi, that are running cadence of 180 (except on some trails, deep
snow, mud, etc, or tuckered out in bad form). My point is that things
aren't as black and white as you make them sound.
In this particular case, the person found that 180 was "much more
natural to me than the slower cadence". Why would you suggest she might
want to slow the cadence down?
I think the video that somebody analyzed had some short distance (can't
remember the distance, perhaps sprint) runners with cadence above 200,
iirc. So my assumption is that really fast runners may run at a much
higher cadence than 180. Not sure what they train at. So maybe slow
runners should run at 180. Works for me.
>
> My question to you would be, *why not* ?
Because it doesn't make any sense. Why should you suggest that bumble
bees can't fly, when they clearly can. This is what many people find.
Perhaps a few outliers exceptions that probably forced something else
when they tried to switch to 180 and got injured.
>
> 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.
Ah, I'm not doing single leg squat balances while I run.
The alternative that you're missing is that you can just maintain the
same cadence at all paces - just shorten the steps.
>
>
>>- 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!
No, take smaller steps. Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. Yes,
on longer runs, it may need to slow the cadence, but that's a factor of
conditioning.
> is more economical than running at 3mph. At slow paces like 5mph, it is more
> economical to do a sort of shuffle-run.
Perhaps for you. I shuffle-run sometimes when I'm being lazy or on flat
or easy ground, but generally I have to clear roots or snow. When you
get to be twice your age, you may understand.
The relative efficiency of different forms (run or walk) of locomotion
varies among individuals, and it may vary with trained athletes compared
with sedentary (and I'm sure there's in between results for those of us
in between). (see the paper I posted a while ago on energy costs)
I will admit that I'm not sure I've ever run something completely flat
with a firm surface, so perhaps what you are saying makes sense there.
But on the terrain I run on (including the paved bike path when I used
to run that), it just doesn't hold.
>
>
>>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 agree. But some of us like to run hills - because they are there. You
may chose to use a watch to measure speed in a horizontal distance.
Others of us prefer the 3-dimensional challenge. Perhaps some day I'll
worry about vertical ft / min pace, but for now, I'm just concerned with
getting more efficient at doings things. And for me right now, I do get
better each time - whether it's inefficient or not is irrelevant.
>
>
>>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!)
>
But perhaps some of us would like to *run* 30% grades - because they are
a challenge. And by the time one gets to 30% grades (maybe a little
above), it's lower energy cost for elites to walk also. If the race is
short, they run; if it's a few hours, they walk - depends on how much
energy they can expend.
For long runs (about 1.5 hr in my case, much longer for experienced
runners), I and many experienced runners would probably walk it. But
that doesn't mean you don't run them in training to improve your hill
running. Same idea as training on longer distances than race distances -
train on steeper hills than race day. I like to challenge myself. I
recognize for you the clock on flat surfaces is the challenge. Some of
us prefer other challenges, which take just as much work.
Although one of my short races (5k, assuming not cancelled again) does
use this course, and I see no reason to walk those hills in a race of
that duration, if I have the time to train.
Now, it's also possible in my case, because of the biomechanical issues
(diagnosed by PT) I have with my feet (a result is increased time in
foot plant) and a lot of my running is on snow, I may not have developed
some mechanics. dunno. BUT, I still run a wide variety of paces at about
175-180. And my slowest paces are usually uphill or snow or dark and the
are slower cadence.
Dot
--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog