Counting Your Cadence

Recent attempts to incorporate some slower running into my routine caused me to notice something I
have always done without giving it a second thought -- silently counting out my cadence in my head
-- while running, for me this is a constant 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, such that the starting foot
alternates right-to-left and back (helps keep symmetric running form, I'd bet).

For me, this is a vestige of the fact that my first sport was cycling, where keeping your cadence
nearly constant is a hallmark of good cycling, and is enabled by being pro-active with your gear
changes. While cycling, most people try to keep at about 60 rpm or higher, and folks like Lance
Armstrong or Greg Lemond may be at 80-90 rpm or more at times. While cycling, my count is always 1-2-3-
4, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, different than the running count in that it always starts with the same
footstroke.

This habit has become so ingrained in my running and cycling that I never even notice it anymore;
nonetheless, I believe it is extremely helpful in maintaining pacing. I can invariably guess within
30 seconds how long it has taken me to complete a given circuit, though I never run for less than 45
minutes or so. Perhaps more important, counting my cadence reminds me to shorten my stride and keep
the same cadence on the uphill portions of my runs ("gearing down").

The counting does not keep me from thinking about other things while running, as it takes up a level
of conciousness somewhere underneath real "thinking." As most NG regulars know, the recommendations
for distance-running cadence vary somewhat but seem generally to congregate around 160 -190 steps
per minute, and this fits nicely with the 1-2-3 per second count.

Am I alone in doing this? Other interesting variations on this theme out there?

 

"TopCounsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> around 160 -190 steps per minute, and this fits nicely with the 1-2-3 per second count.
>
> Am I alone in doing this?

Nope. The first time I heard that ~180 bpm was a good objective, i've thought in terms of triplets.

There are some 6/8 time-signatured tunes that I can play in my head to keep myself on track,
although I don't know of many that actually reflect this specific pace--it's too fast for a typical
rock balladish thing, and too slow for fast blues.

--

Dirk

**

"i could ramble on for days about the psychological neediness of a dog owner vs. the independent,
need no grovelling affection to prove you're in charge strength of cat owners. but i won't."

--sam hutcheson settles an ancient dispute

to email reverse [email protected]_ad **

 

TopCounsel <[email protected]> writes:

: Am I alone in doing this?

Are you kidding? In a word, no.


Larry

 

topcounsel wrote:

>As most NG regulars know, the recommendations for distance-running cadence vary somewhat but seem
>generally to congregate around 160 -190 steps per minute.

Huh?? Exactly what recommendations (from someone who knows what he/she's talking about) are out
there for LESS than 180? As Daniels put it, that is one of the main things that makes many people
slow. 180 appears to be a MINIMUM for efficient running. Most elite marathoners come in at 180-190.
Some sprinters go as fast as 5 strides per second.

Last year during the LA Marathon telecast, I timed the cadence of the Kenyan who led most of the
race and eventually finished second. His cadence came to
203.

60 rpm, maybe; 55 rpm isn't going to cut it.

Lyndon

"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

 

123, 123, 123? How many feet do you have?

 

air[email protected] (Lyndon) wrote:

>Huh?? Exactly what recommendations (from someone who knows what he/she's talking about) are out
>there for LESS than 180? As Daniels put it, that is one of the main things that makes many people
>slow. 180 appears to be a MINIMUM for efficient running. Most elite marathoners come in at 180-190.
>Some sprinters go as fast as 5 strides per second.

I'm biased to higher stride rates myself, and seem to go at about 192 or so on average for my
morning road runs. When I said "distance running" cadence I certainly didn't mean to include
sprinting, but I did lump in the joggers, in my own mind. If I really think about it, it seems that
180 is the number I've read most often as a recommendation for distance running, but I know that the
10-minute-milers and up aren't going to be jogging optimally at that rate, and I have read
recommendations lower than 180 for them. I have not seen anyone recommend a rate less than 180 for
competitive running; sorry if I seemed to imply that.

>60 rpm, maybe; 55 rpm isn't going to cut it.

Were you making a comment about cycling cadence here, or something else?

 

"Dirk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "TopCounsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> m19.aol.com...
> > around 160 -190 steps per minute, and this fits nicely with the 1-2-3 per second count.
> >
> > Am I alone in doing this?
>
> Nope. The first time I heard that ~180 bpm was a good objective, i've thought in terms of
> triplets.
>
> There are some 6/8 time-signatured tunes that I can play in my head to keep myself on track,
> although I don't know of many that actually reflect this specific pace--it's too fast for a
> typical rock balladish thing, and too slow for fast blues.

Think Chopin's Waltz in C# Minor Opus 64 No 2. In 3/4 time, obviously, but a great soundtrack to a
cadence count.

Edward
--
The reading group's reading group: http://www.bookgroup.org.uk

 

TopCounsel wrote:
> [email protected] (Lyndon) wrote:
>
>
>>Huh?? Exactly what recommendations (from someone who knows what he/she's talking about) are out
>>there for LESS than 180? As Daniels put it, that is one of the main things that makes many people
>>slow. 180 appears to be a MINIMUM for efficient running. Most elite marathoners come in at 180-
>>190. Some sprinters go as fast as 5 strides per second.
>
>
>
> I'm biased to higher stride rates myself, and seem to go at about 192 or so on average for my
> morning road runs. When I said "distance running" cadence I certainly didn't mean to include
> sprinting, but I did lump in the joggers, in my own mind. If I really think about it, it seems
> that 180 is the number I've read most often as a recommendation for distance running, but I know
> that the 10-minute-milers and up aren't going to be jogging optimally at that rate, and I have
> read recommendations lower than 180 for them.

Actually, I've heard 180 across the board except for the faster runners (like elites, sprinters)
that would have a faster cadence. I rarely count anymore but I did a check when we had some firm
snow - once on road and once on easy trail, both in the dark probably - and I was just a little shy
of 180, maybe 177 or so, iirc. And I was probably in the 15-20 min/mile recovery-run range at the
time. In mushy snow, snowshoes, mud, etc my cadence is probably slower and where obstacles are
present, possibly irregular, which is why I hadn't checked for a long time. Before I learned about
the 180 (about 3 yrs ago), I was probably closer to 160, but with a lot more pounding. The faster
cadence (180) reduces the air time and hence the pounding, even for slower runners.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

 

"TopCounsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'm biased to higher stride rates myself, and seem to go at about 192 or
so on
> average for my morning road runs. When I said "distance running" cadence
I
> certainly didn't mean to include sprinting, but I did lump in the joggers,
in
> my own mind. If I really think about it, it seems that 180 is the number
I've
> read most often as a recommendation for distance running, but I know that
the
> 10-minute-milers and up aren't going to be jogging optimally at that rate,
and
> I have read recommendations lower than 180 for them. I have not seen
anyone
> recommend a rate less than 180 for competitive running; sorry if I seemed
to
> imply that.

I don't know - I've ran with friends at a 10-minute mile pace and my cadence gets faster, if
anything. Gravity seems to ensure that. The only way I could see getting it lower would be to do an
weird "moon-running' impression, or something.

When I was a brand-new, much slower runner, my cadence was 185 - 190, but it got a little slower (to
about 180) on it's own, which I always assumed was from improved form over time. So for me, I
noticed a lowering of cadence as I got faster and more experienced.

Sometimes I see people on the treadmill at my gym (usually the type of person that calls running
"cardio", pounding loudly with a slow cadence at a fairly high speed. It looks comical, like they
are trying to float, or maybe take off like a plane. Their "cardio" generally lasts about 3 minutes,
sometimes up to five. I don't mean that in a snobby way - I'm sure I look ridiculous when I venture
over to the weight room.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org

 

On 24 Feb 2004 19:30:32 GMT, [email protected] (TopCounsel) wrote:

>Am I alone in doing this?

No. There are heaps and heaps of mind-numbingly boring souls doing precisely the same as you.

Each day I thank the Lord that our paths have never crossed in the real world.

 

>No. There are heaps and heaps of mind-numbingly boring souls doing precisely the same as you.
>
>Each day I thank the Lord that our paths have never crossed in the real world.

Very pleasant, old chap. Top o' the morning to you, too.

 

[email protected] (TopCounsel) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >Think Chopin's Waltz in C# Minor Opus 64 No 2. In 3/4 time, obviously, but a great soundtrack to
> >a cadence count.
>
> That's a good one, alright, especially the second segment with all the fast "spaghetti music." I
> enjoy playing this one at the piano, but haven't passed it through my head while running. I'll bet
> it gets your fingers moving, too.

That's the bit I like best, though like all Chopin waltzes, the whole piece is fiendishly difficult
to play well, with the correct lightness of touch I find (especially the LH jumps).

Edward

 

Love the 1-2-3 count too. Feels less lopsided and keeps me rolling along better. I have one bad knee
and I use it to make sure I don't favour one side over the other.

 

In article <[email protected]>, TopCounsel
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Recent attempts to incorporate some slower running into my routine caused me to notice something I
> have always done without giving it a second thought -- silently counting out my cadence in my head
> -- while running, for me this is a constant 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, such that the starting foot
> alternates right-to-left and back (helps keep symmetric running form, I'd bet).
>
> For me, this is a vestige of the fact that my first sport was cycling, where keeping your cadence
> nearly constant is a hallmark of good cycling, and is enabled by being pro-active with your gear
> changes. While cycling, most people try to keep at about 60 rpm or higher, and folks like Lance
> Armstrong or Greg Lemond may be at 80-90 rpm or more at times. While cycling, my count is always
> 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, different than the running count in that it always starts with the same
> footstroke.
>
> This habit has become so ingrained in my running and cycling that I never even notice it anymore;
> nonetheless, I believe it is extremely helpful in maintaining pacing. I can invariably guess
> within 30 seconds how long it has taken me to complete a given circuit, though I never run for
> less than 45 minutes or so. Perhaps more important, counting my cadence reminds me to shorten my
> stride and keep the same cadence on the uphill portions of my runs ("gearing down").
>
> The counting does not keep me from thinking about other things while running, as it takes up a
> level of conciousness somewhere underneath real "thinking." As most NG regulars know, the
> recommendations for distance-running cadence vary somewhat but seem generally to congregate around
> 160 -190 steps per minute, and this fits nicely with the 1-2-3 per second count.
>
> Am I alone in doing this? Other interesting variations on this theme out there?

Top,

From a reply of mine to to Arthur Dent about 2+ years ago.

In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer - rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon
Clinic, est. 1975

Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/

Arthur Dent wrote:

> I've been experimenting on recent long runs with different ways to keep from going too fast too
> early, which invariably causes me to run much slower at the end.
>
> My breathing experiment seemed to be quite successful. On my last long run, an 18-miler, I
> consciously held myself to a 4-in, 4-out pattern for the first 6 miles. By only running as fast as
> I could comfortably run with this pattern, my pace was a nice and slow 8-8.5 minutes/mile (MPM).
> Then, at the 6-mile mark, I shifted to a 3-in, 4-out pattern for 3 miles. And, at 9 miles, I
> shifted to a 3-in, 3-out for the next 4 miles. By this point, I was doing a steady 8 MPM. At mile
> 13, I shifted to 2-in, 3-out and, finally, for the last 3 miles, I kicked it into high gear
> (i.e., 2-in, 2-out) and slowly accelerated to my hoped-for marathon race pace, doing my last mile
> in 7:23. It was a good feeling to know that I could run a 7:23 mile, without killing myself,
> after having already run 17 miles (and this was my first time running the 18-mile distance!).
> All-in-all, I averaged 8 MPM, with first mile being 8:13, then gradually slowing to 8:40 at
> mile 6, then gradually speeding up as I moved to faster breathing patterns. Is this a good
> long-run pace for someone hoping to do a marathon at 7:20 pace?
>
> Does anyone else use this technique? And what about for the race itself? For the race itself, I'd
> like to do the first few miles at
> 7:50 pace, then accelerate to 7:20 by maybe the 4-5 mile mark, maintaining 7:20 until the half,
> then pushing to 7:15 to make up for the early slowness, and, finally, for the last few miles
> just hoping to hold onto 7:20....
>
> I think that I can do the above negative splitting by consciously constraining myself to slower
> breathing patterns at the start, but is this an inefficient way to control pace? Would I be better
> off if I could hold the desired pace while freely allowing myself to move to faster breathing
> patterns? Or does consciously sticking to slower breathing patterns at the start have the
> favorable effect of not only limiting pace, but also of speeding the transition from glycogen-
> burning to fat-burning? Does it take more oxygen to burn glycogen than it does to burn fat? AD

Arthur,

A man after my own lungs. Here's a post that I have grown into what I call Breathing Rhythms and
Patterns. Hopefully helping to increase your own folklore on breathing. As you allude to, the
breathing becomes the gears to keep fueling the body with enough O2 to keep the body metabolizing
its stores of energy.

Breathing Rhythms & Patterns
c.1999, 2000 Austin "Ozzie" Gontang, Ph.D.

Next to proper running form and style and an integral part of proper running is breathing and the
rhythms of breath.

Once good running form is achieved one can keep the same cadence and be running 30 seconds to 2+
minutes a mile faster. The issue is getting the leg through its cycle to touch the ground
maintaining the same cadence. This is where the concept of running is falling and catching oneself
gracefully comes into play.

To that end, breathing becomes the next important factor in maintaining an oxygen uptake to support
the increased speed while maintaining the same cadence turnover.

This is where I teach breathing at slower speeds to a 4 steps in and 4 to 8 steps out. The idea is
that I am never panicked and that my breathing sequences are always enough to sustain the rate of
turnover...which maintains at the same cadence be it a 9 or 10 minute mile or a 5 minute or better
mile. For the young and for top runners, most never think about breathing. However thinking about
breathing patterns and rhythms and practicing them will allow someone who has played with or
practiced them a possible advantage if it allows them to stayed relaxed, concentrated and focused
under extreme stress.

So running slow, I do a 4 in and 6 or 8.. Then as I need more air I go to a 4in/8out; 1 cycle of air
every 12 steps 2 cycles every 24 steps 4in/7out; 1 cycle of air every 11 steps 4in/6out; 1 cycle of
air every 10 steps 4in/5out; 1 cycle of air every 9 steps 4in/4out; 1 cycle of air every 8 steps 3
cycles every 24 steps 3in/4out; 1 cycle of air every 7 steps 3in/3out; 1 cycle of air every 6 steps
4 cycles every 24 steps 2in/3out; 1 cycle of air every 5 steps 2in/2out; 1 cycle of air every 4
steps 6 cycles every 24 steps 1in/2out; 1 cycle of air every 3 steps 8 cycles every 24 steps
1in/1out/1in/1out/2in/2out 9 cycles every 24 steps 1in/1out/1in/1out/1in/1out/1in/1out 12 cycles
every 24 steps

The ideal one goes for is the same volume at all rhythms. Remember you're always breathing though
the nose even when the mouth is open...unless your nose is blocked, i.e. nasal congestion.

All of these patterns are breathed at a rate so that the mind stays calm and does not let any of the
body unnecessarily tighten up from a perceived stress beyond one's capability.

The other aspect of breathing cycles is that an even (symmetric) breathing pattern, which means when
the steps in & steps out total an even number, the runner is always running on the same foot at
intake and also at exhale.

With an odd (asymmetric) breathing pattern, which means when the steps in & steps out total an odd
number, the runner is running off the opposite foot at initial intake step of each breathing cycle
in-three-steps/out-four-steps; in-three-steps/out-four-steps:

in-two-three out-two-three-four in-two-three out-two-three-four LFT-2 - 3--RT -two-three-four RT-two-
three LFT-two-three-four LFT-two-three... L 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 2 3 4 5 6 7 L 2 3...

In animals there is a breathing pattern which is called phase locking. It has been photographed at
high speeds in horses, cheetahs, ostriches where at full speed there is one pattern into which
they fall. In humans, if I remember from the research, there were found two phase lock patterns at
top speed.

So you can see if you breathe 2in/2out all the time and we speed up you can only continue to do
what you do. You only get 6 cycles of air every 24 steps. Whereas I can pick up the speed and get
8 cycles or even 9 cycles of air every 24 steps...and if I practice I can get 10 or 12 cycles
every 24 steps.

You may begin to realize that running a marathon during the later part of the run from 15 onwards is
a matter of running in a trance state. It is through these breathing patterns I have taught people
to play with the rhythms of their breath to keep on going. So for someone whose muscles are glycogen
depleted I need to maintain the same running pace but increase the amount of oxygen to those
muscles...and that is where the breathing patterns come in.

Some people begin to realize the power of rhythm. When I run with a partner and we are doing
symmetric breathing of 2in/2out or 3in/3out or 4in/4out, I do reciprocal breathing so that after 3
or 4 minutes as they breathe out I am breathing in and as they breathe in I am breathing out. The
sound can be heard. The experience is that the other person's out breath is breathing me. On the
next cycle my out breath is breathing his/her in breath.

Eyes on the horizon, breathing reciprocally with my partner, the miles covered in trance are an
experience to remember.

When into the breathing and at different breathing patterns both symmetric and asymmetric and some
being reciprocal, the breathing patterns of 3 or 4 or 5 of us mixed with the foot touch (rather than
foot fall) can carry a group of runners easily for miles where the mind scans the body to relax any
tension as it arises and lets it go...going back to the sound of the feet running together and the
breathe of the pack. If you've seen Stomp you know the power of rhythm!

In article <[email protected]>, Jen <[email protected]> wrote:

> How are you supposed to breathe when you run? I have no problem doing this when jogging, but when
> running or doing anything else (like crunches), I never get to the point where my muscles are
> sore, simply because I always stop when I'm gasping for air. I've tried doing searches on how
> you're supposed to breathe, but I don't quite understand the notation that people use (such as
> 8/4) and how do you breathe in-in/out-out? Does this just mean to take a deeper breath? Thanks.

 

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:42:11 GMT, Ozzie Gontang
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Top,
>
>From a reply of mine to to Arthur Dent about 2+ years ago.
>
>In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang

Wondered where you were. Good to see you're still alive.

 

In article <[email protected]>, Pris Stratton
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:42:11 GMT, Ozzie Gontang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Top,
> >
> >From a reply of mine to to Arthur Dent about 2+ years ago.
> >
> >In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang
>
> Wondered where you were. Good to see you're still alive.

Pris,

Quietly disappeared for two weeks with my daughter for an adventure to Micronesia.

We flew to Hawaii, did an overnight and then flew the Island Hopper to Majuro, Kwagelein, stayed 5
days in Kosrae and then 3 days in Pohnpe.

Great time. We flew on to Guam where she headed off to Palau for 3 weeks of doing research on the
ocean sediment looking for micro organisms and sponges.

It's great leaving at 7:10 AM and then arriving back in San Diego at
7:30 AM the same day. The jet lag has kicked in and I'm off to dreamland.

In health and on the run,

Ozzie

 

Ozzie Gontang <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<030320041842035567%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, TopCounsel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Recent attempts to incorporate some slower running into my routine caused me to notice something
> > I have always done without giving it a second thought -- silently counting out my cadence in my
> > head -- while running, for me this is a constant 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, such that the starting
> > foot alternates right-to-left and back (helps keep symmetric running form, I'd bet).
> >
> > For me, this is a vestige of the fact that my first sport was cycling, where keeping your
> > cadence nearly constant is a hallmark of good cycling, and is enabled by being pro-active with
> > your gear changes. While cycling, most people try to keep at about 60 rpm or higher, and folks
> > like Lance Armstrong or Greg Lemond may be at 80-90 rpm or more at times. While cycling, my
> > count is always 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, different than the running count in that it always
> > starts with the same footstroke.
> >
> > This habit has become so ingrained in my running and cycling that I never even notice it
> > anymore; nonetheless, I believe it is extremely helpful in maintaining pacing. I can invariably
> > guess within 30 seconds how long it has taken me to complete a given circuit, though I never run
> > for less than 45 minutes or so. Perhaps more important, counting my cadence reminds me to
> > shorten my stride and keep the same cadence on the uphill portions of my runs ("gearing down").
> >
> > The counting does not keep me from thinking about other things while running, as it takes up a
> > level of conciousness somewhere underneath real "thinking." As most NG regulars know, the
> > recommendations for distance-running cadence vary somewhat but seem generally to congregate
> > around 160 -190 steps per minute, and this fits nicely with the 1-2-3 per second count.
> >
> > Am I alone in doing this? Other interesting variations on this theme out there?
>
> Top,
>
> From a reply of mine to to Arthur Dent about 2+ years ago.
>
> In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer - rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon
> Clinic, est. 1975
>
> Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
>
>
> Arthur Dent wrote:
>
> > I've been experimenting on recent long runs with different ways to keep from going too fast too
> > early, which invariably causes me to run much slower at the end.
> >
> > My breathing experiment seemed to be quite successful. On my last long run, an 18-miler, I
> > consciously held myself to a 4-in, 4-out pattern for the first 6 miles. By only running as fast
> > as I could comfortably run with this pattern, my pace was a nice and slow 8-8.5 minutes/mile
> > (MPM). Then, at the 6-mile mark, I shifted to a 3-in, 4-out pattern for 3 miles. And, at 9
> > miles, I shifted to a 3-in, 3-out for the next 4 miles. By this point, I was doing a steady 8
> > MPM. At mile 13, I shifted to 2-in, 3-out and, finally, for the last 3 miles, I kicked it into
> > high gear
> > (i.e., 2-in, 2-out) and slowly accelerated to my hoped-for marathon race pace, doing my last
> > mile in 7:23. It was a good feeling to know that I could run a 7:23 mile, without killing
> > myself, after having already run 17 miles (and this was my first time running the 18-mile
> > distance!). All-in-all, I averaged 8 MPM, with first mile being 8:13, then gradually
> > slowing to 8:40 at mile 6, then gradually speeding up as I moved to faster breathing
> > patterns. Is this a good long-run pace for someone hoping to do a marathon at 7:20 pace?
> >
> > Does anyone else use this technique? And what about for the race itself? For the race itself,
> > I'd like to do the first few miles at
> > 7:50 pace, then accelerate to 7:20 by maybe the 4-5 mile mark, maintaining 7:20 until the half,
> > then pushing to 7:15 to make up for the early slowness, and, finally, for the last few miles
> > just hoping to hold onto 7:20....
> >
> > I think that I can do the above negative splitting by consciously constraining myself to slower
> > breathing patterns at the start, but is this an inefficient way to control pace? Would I be
> > better off if I could hold the desired pace while freely allowing myself to move to faster
> > breathing patterns? Or does consciously sticking to slower breathing patterns at the start have
> > the favorable effect of not only limiting pace, but also of speeding the transition from glycogen-
> > burning to fat-burning? Does it take more oxygen to burn glycogen than it does to burn fat? AD
>
>
> Arthur,
>
> A man after my own lungs. Here's a post that I have grown into what I call Breathing Rhythms and
> Patterns. Hopefully helping to increase your own folklore on breathing. As you allude to, the
> breathing becomes the gears to keep fueling the body with enough O2 to keep the body metabolizing
> its stores of energy.
>
>
>
> Breathing Rhythms & Patterns
> c.1999, 2000 Austin "Ozzie" Gontang, Ph.D.
>
> Next to proper running form and style and an integral part of proper running is breathing and the
> rhythms of breath.
>
> Once good running form is achieved one can keep the same cadence and be running 30 seconds to 2+
> minutes a mile faster. The issue is getting the leg through its cycle to touch the ground
> maintaining the same cadence. This is where the concept of running is falling and catching oneself
> gracefully comes into play.
>
> To that end, breathing becomes the next important factor in maintaining an oxygen uptake to
> support the increased speed while maintaining the same cadence turnover.
>
> This is where I teach breathing at slower speeds to a 4 steps in and 4 to 8 steps out. The idea is
> that I am never panicked and that my breathing sequences are always enough to sustain the rate of
> turnover...which maintains at the same cadence be it a 9 or 10 minute mile or a 5 minute or better
> mile. For the young and for top runners, most never think about breathing. However thinking about
> breathing patterns and rhythms and practicing them will allow someone who has played with or
> practiced them a possible advantage if it allows them to stayed relaxed, concentrated and focused
> under extreme stress.
>
> So running slow, I do a 4 in and 6 or 8.. Then as I need more air I go to a 4in/8out; 1 cycle of
> air every 12 steps 2 cycles every 24 steps 4in/7out; 1 cycle of air every 11 steps 4in/6out; 1
> cycle of air every 10 steps 4in/5out; 1 cycle of air every 9 steps 4in/4out; 1 cycle of air every
> 8 steps 3 cycles every 24 steps 3in/4out; 1 cycle of air every 7 steps 3in/3out; 1 cycle of air
> every 6 steps 4 cycles every 24 steps 2in/3out; 1 cycle of air every 5 steps 2in/2out; 1 cycle of
> air every 4 steps 6 cycles every 24 steps 1in/2out; 1 cycle of air every 3 steps 8 cycles every
> 24 steps

> 1in/1out/1in/1out/2in/2out 9 cycles every 24 steps 1in/1out/1in/1out/1in/1out/1in/1out 12 cycles
> every 24 steps
>
> The ideal one goes for is the same volume at all rhythms. Remember you're always breathing though
> the nose even when the mouth is open...unless your nose is blocked, i.e. nasal congestion.
>
> All of these patterns are breathed at a rate so that the mind stays calm and does not let any of
> the body unnecessarily tighten up from a perceived stress beyond one's capability.
>
> The other aspect of breathing cycles is that an even (symmetric) breathing pattern, which means
> when the steps in & steps out total an even number, the runner is always running on the same foot
> at intake and also at exhale.
>
> With an odd (asymmetric) breathing pattern, which means when the steps in & steps out total an odd
> number, the runner is running off the opposite foot at initial intake step of each breathing cycle
> in-three-steps/out-four-steps; in-three-steps/out-four-steps:
>
> in-two-three out-two-three-four in-two-three out-two-three-four LFT-2 - 3--RT -two-three-four RT-two-
> three LFT-two-three-four LFT-two-three... L 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 2 3 4 5 6 7 L 2 3...
>
> In animals there is a breathing pattern which is called phase locking. It has been photographed at
> high speeds in horses, cheetahs, ostriches where at full speed there is one pattern into which
> they fall. In humans, if I remember from the research, there were found two phase lock patterns at
> top speed.
>
> So you can see if you breathe 2in/2out all the time and we speed up you can only continue to do
> what you do. You only get 6 cycles of air every 24 steps. Whereas I can pick up the speed and get
> 8 cycles or even 9 cycles of air every 24 steps...and if I practice I can get 10 or 12 cycles
> every 24 steps.
>
> You may begin to realize that running a marathon during the later part of the run from 15 onwards
> is a matter of running in a trance state. It is through these breathing patterns I have taught
> people to play with the rhythms of their breath to keep on going. So for someone whose muscles are
> glycogen depleted I need to maintain the same running pace but increase the amount of oxygen to
> those muscles...and that is where the breathing patterns come in.
>
> Some people begin to realize the power of rhythm. When I run with a partner and we are doing
> symmetric breathing of 2in/2out or 3in/3out or 4in/4out, I do reciprocal breathing so that after 3
> or 4 minutes as they breathe out I am breathing in and as they breathe in I am breathing out. The
> sound can be heard. The experience is that the other person's out breath is breathing me. On the
> next cycle my out breath is breathing his/her in breath.
>
> Eyes on the horizon, breathing reciprocally with my partner, the miles covered in trance are an
> experience to remember.
>
> When into the breathing and at different breathing patterns both symmetric and asymmetric and some
> being reciprocal, the breathing patterns of 3 or 4 or 5 of us mixed with the foot touch (rather
> than foot fall) can carry a group of runners easily for miles where the mind scans the body to
> relax any tension as it arises and lets it go...going back to the sound of the feet running
> together and the breathe of the pack. If you've seen Stomp you know the power of rhythm!
>
>
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Jen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > How are you supposed to breathe when you run? I have no problem doing this when jogging, but
> > when running or doing anything else (like crunches), I never get to the point where my muscles
> > are sore, simply because I always stop when I'm gasping for air. I've tried doing searches on
> > how you're supposed to breathe, but I don't quite understand the notation that people use (such
> > as 8/4) and how do you breathe in-in/out-out? Does this just mean to take a deeper breath?
> > Thanks.

"So for someone whose muscles are glycogen depleted I need to maintain the same running pace but
increase the amount of oxygen to those muscles...and that is where the breathing patterns come in."
(from above)

Are you suggesting that if one simply breaths more they will take in more oxygen? You need to breath
enough, but beyond a certain point your lungs will not take in more oxygen.

 

"eddy eagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ozzie Gontang <[email protected]> wrote in message "So for someone whose muscles are
> glycogen depleted I need to maintain the same running pace but increase the amount of oxygen to
> those muscles...and that is where the breathing patterns come in." (from above)
>
> Are you suggesting that if one simply breaths more they will take in more oxygen? You need to
> breath enough, but beyond a certain point your lungs will not take in more oxygen.

I think his points are related to the same reason trained singers and horn/reed instrument players
are able to get more lung "power" as some call it, as they progress.

Although of course the lungs are not muscles, the way in which you breath and use your diaphragm has
a big effect on whether you feel out-of-breath or not. Learning how different breathing styles and
methods relate to certain activities like running, or playing a french horn, can really help you get
better and stay more relaxed.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most insecure people are the ones you see, putting
other people down constantly."

 

> "So for someone whose muscles are glycogen depleted I need to maintain the same running pace but
> increase the amount of oxygen to those muscles...and that is where the breathing patterns come
> in." (from above)
>
> Are you suggesting that if one simply breaths more they will take in more oxygen? You need to
> breath enough, but beyond a certain point your lungs will not take in more oxygen.

The idea is to breathe enough to staff off an anerobic state. Getting more oxygen by shortening the
breathing cycle, 2 in / 1 out, or 1 in /one out is to utilize one's breathing capacity while
maintaining a relaxed mind and unstressed body because of oxygen debt.

I agree there is a point when the lungs can't take in any more oxygen.

Ozzie

 

"SwStudio" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<LW%[email protected]>...
> "eddy eagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ozzie Gontang <[email protected]> wrote in message "So for someone whose muscles are
> > glycogen depleted I need to maintain the same running pace but increase the amount of oxygen to
> > those muscles...and that is where the breathing patterns come in." (from above)
> >
> > Are you suggesting that if one simply breaths more they will take in more oxygen? You need to
> > breath enough, but beyond a certain point your lungs will not take in more oxygen.
>
>
> I think his points are related to the same reason trained singers and horn/reed instrument players
> are able to get more lung "power" as some call it, as they progress.
>
> Although of course the lungs are not muscles, the way in which you breath and use your diaphragm
> has a big effect on whether you feel out-of-breath or not. Learning how different breathing styles
> and methods relate to certain activities like running, or playing a french horn, can really help
> you get better and stay more relaxed.
>
> cheers,

Hello..... Hello..... He was not talking about an opera singer and lung "power" which can be
enhanced by training. Simply taking more air into the lungs does not increase the transfer rate to
the blood or the muscles after a certain point.