Run Turnover Rate

[Zz]

Finally, a question on treadmill jogging, something he's qualified to comment on.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:34:35 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "apusapus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Chris Maginn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>> >> Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a
>> site
>>> >that has an indepth discussion?
>>> >
>>> >Sack you coach and forget about this trivia. Just run.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I experimented with my own optimal cadence on the treadmill. Just set the speed to race
>>> pace, and then try to find the cadence that produces the lowest heart rate.
>>>
>>> Crude, yes. But it did seem to work for me (I run very little due to knee issues, but do OK in
>>> races).
>>
>> So Mark, what were the specifics of your treadmill test? For a given running speed, there must be
>> a trade off between the additional energy required for a faster leg turnover and the probable
>> losses due to increased vertical body displacement with a longer stride. For shorter events,
>> effectiveness overshadows efficiency but for long distance, the 180+ bum shuffle would arguably
>> be more efficient as well as possibly reducing fatigue inducing foot strike forces.
>
>Anecdotally, some have observed that the mile is approximately the point at which turnover
>increases notably. I've observed that I start getting slight turnover increases as I get close to 1
>mile race pace when doing track intervals.
>
>For shorter distances like 400m or less, turnover would probably be much faster than 180/min,
>possibly as high as 240/min.
>
>Cheers,

 

[Matthew Mazerow]

"apusapus" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Chris Maginn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site
> that has an indepth discussion?
>
> Sack you coach and forget about this trivia. Just run.
>
>
> Roger.

If you ever let go of your sack you would be able to run.

 

[William Richmon]

I would suggest that you read: Daniels Running Formula -- Jack Daniels author. In this book he
relate the reasons for a 180 turnover. Basically he say 2 things -- 1. I looked at lots of Olympic
runners at all distances and they all had turnovers of about 180. 2. The faster turnover lessens
the shock on your body as you don't need to get as high in the air so you don't fall as far at
each step.

"Chris Maginn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low (may
> 160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on increasing
> this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site that
> has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote

>> FWIW, I experimented with my own optimal cadence on the treadmill. Just set the speed to race
>> pace, and then try to find the cadence that produces the lowest heart rate.
>>
>> Crude, yes. But it did seem to work for me (I run very little due to knee issues, but do OK in
>> races).
>
>So Mark, what were the specifics of your treadmill test? For a given running speed, there must be a
>trade off between the additional energy required for a faster leg turnover and the probable losses
>due to increased vertical body displacement with a longer stride. For shorter events, effectiveness
>overshadows efficiency but for long distance, the 180+ bum shuffle would arguably be more efficient
>as well as possibly reducing fatigue inducing foot strike forces.

I don't recall all the details, but in general I had the treadmill running at a 0 degree incline and
at a 6:00 - 6:30 pace (depending on the the traning du jour). I never worried about actually
measuring my turnover rate but DID notice a distinct efficiency advantage to lengthening my stride,
based on reduced heart rate at a given pace.

Using the HRM to monitor my efficiency also led to working out just how to properly relax while
running (that is, relax the parts that aren't necessary to locomotion).

Trouble is, it's hard to judge the relationship between stride and speed on the road, since you
don't have the advantage of moving backward to alert you to the fact you're subtly slowing down...

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Jeff Hartman]

Exercise physiologist and Cross Country coach Dr. Jack Daniels in his book "Daniels Running
Formula's" also suggests are turnover rate of 180 based on his research. The book is an excellent
read. I highly recommend it. Jeff

Chris Maginn wrote:
> I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low (may
> 160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on increasing
> this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to a site that
> has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.

 

[Chris Maginn]

Thanks, I've actually spent many many hours hanging with Dr Jack Daniels over the years. The dumbest
night we spent together was having him served in shot glasses and then dropped in glasses filled
with a 12 oz can of Bud (referred to as a "Depth Charge").

Sorry Jeff, I just couldn't resist

Jeff Hartman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Exercise physiologist and Cross Country coach Dr. Jack Daniels in his book "Daniels Running
> Formula's" also suggests are turnover rate of 180 based on his research. The book is an excellent
> read. I highly recommend it. Jeff
>
> Chris Maginn wrote:
> > I'm looking for info on run turnover rate. My turnover rate has traditionally been rather low
> > (may 160). Upon the advice of my Tri coach I've spent more time on the treadmill working on
> > increasing this up to 175-180. Anyone have an expert opinion on this subject or can point me to
> > a site that has an indepth discussion? Looking at long term effect on performance, injury, etc.