Running cadence too fast?

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Ryan Pearman, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. Ryan Pearman

    Ryan Pearman Guest

    A quickie:

    Due to darkness, I've been "forced" to do some speedwork (mainly tempo runs) indoors, and on a lark
    decided to see how my stride rate was doing. For my regular runs, I am usually very near the 180
    "gold standard" through a range of speeds, but to my surprise, during a tempo run on a treadmill
    (~10sec slower than 10k pace, 6:15/mile, 1% incline) I found myself running at 188. Any hints on
    getting the stride rate *down*, or am I running my tempos too fast?
     
    Tags:


  2. Bumper

    Bumper Guest

    This may be a natural result of treadmill running, I recently read somewhere, Runners World?, that
    studies have shown that a treadmill stride is shorter than on terra firma, if so you would have to
    increase stride rate to compensate for the decrease in ground covered by each step in the same
    amount of time.

    This may not be such a bad of a thing because it could make "real" running at the slower stride seem
    less effortless than before.

    What I can't figure out is why running on a treadmill, with all those little cushioney things,
    causes my knees to hurt than more that twice the distance on asphalt.

    Ryan Pearman <[email protected]> wrote:

    > A quickie:
    >
    > Due to darkness, I've been "forced" to do some speedwork (mainly tempo runs) indoors, and on a
    > lark decided to see how my stride rate was doing. For my regular runs, I am usually very near the
    > 180 "gold standard" through a range of speeds, but to my surprise, during a tempo run on a
    > treadmill (~10sec slower than 10k pace, 6:15/mile, 1% incline) I found myself running at 188. Any
    > hints on getting the stride rate *down*, or am I running my tempos too fast?
     
  3. Fountainhead

    Fountainhead Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:59:30 -0600, [email protected] (Bumper)
    wrote:

    >This may be a natural result of treadmill running, I recently read somewhere, Runners World?, that
    >studies have shown that a treadmill stride is shorter than on terra firma, if so you would have to
    >increase stride rate to compensate for the decrease in ground covered by each step in the same
    >amount of time.
    >
    >This may not be such a bad of a thing because it could make "real" running at the slower stride
    >seem less effortless than before.
    >

    I don't know if the stride length thing is true or not, but I personally find your second paragraph
    to be accurate. I try to do my regular runs at around 9 mpm. On a treadmill, I feel like I'm flying
    just to run 9:30 mpm. Outdoors, I have to fight to keep from running
    8:30 mpm. The effort seems so different that I "calibrated" the treadmill by putting a piece of tape
    on the belt and counting the revs. The distance wasn't exact, but was within .05 miles. I always
    thought the perceived difference in effort was psychological, but maybe it has to do with a
    shorter stride, as you suggest.
     
  4. In article <1g85bjn.fkzwex1sz4nlmN%[email protected]>, Bumper wrote:
    > This may be a natural result of treadmill running, I recently read somewhere, Runners World?, that
    > studies have shown that a treadmill stride is shorter than on terra firma,

    It's possible that people shorten their stride because they're trying to stay close to the front of
    the treadmill for fear of falling off the back.

    Anecdotally, I've noticed that many people in the gym using the treadmill are overstriding, so maybe
    these people are best off using a treadmill (-;

    > What I can't figure out is why running on a treadmill, with all those little cushioney things,
    > causes my knees to hurt than more that twice the distance on asphalt.

    Maybe all that cushioning is doing more harm than good. Some knee injuries are impact related, but
    some more pronation-related.

    You might do better with some shoes that have less cushioning than you'd use on the road, such as
    lightweight trainers, or at least something lighter than what you're wearing now.

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

    Bumper Guest

    Thanks for the thoughts, actually I am supinator and have been running in the same basic shoes for
    the past ten years without any serious injuries. However, they lean more toward stable than cushion,
    so maybe I'll get out a pair of really cushioned semicurved shoes and give them a try.

    I really hate running in foul weather and my schedule often results in midnight runs so I have been
    testing out training on a treadmill with thoughts of purchasing one. So this may be more of a head
    game than anything else. I may just have to gut it out for a few sessions to see it I can run
    through it.

    Thanks again.

    Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <1g85bjn.fkzwex1sz4nlmN%[email protected]>, Bumper wrote:
    > > This may be a natural result of treadmill running, I recently read >
    > somewhere, Runners World?, that studies have shown that a treadmill > stride is shorter than on
    > terra firma,
    >
    > It's possible that people shorten their stride because they're trying to stay close to the front
    > of the treadmill for fear of falling off the back.
    >
    > Anecdotally, I've noticed that many people in the gym using the treadmill are overstriding, so
    > maybe these people are best off using a treadmill (-;
    >
    > > What I can't figure out is why running on a treadmill, with all those little cushioney things,
    > > causes my knees to hurt than more that twice the distance on asphalt.
    >
    > Maybe all that cushioning is doing more harm than good. Some knee injuries are impact related, but
    > some more pronation-related.
    >
    > You might do better with some shoes that have less cushioning than you'd use on the road, such as
    > lightweight trainers, or at least something lighter than what you're wearing now.
    >
    > Cheers,
     
  6. Mark

    Mark Guest

    "Ryan Pearman" <[email protected]> writes:
    >For my regular runs, I am usually very near the 180 "gold standard" through a range of speeds, but
    >to my surprise, during a tempo run on a treadmill (~10sec slower than 10k pace, 6:15/mile, 1%
    >incline) I found myself running at 188. Any hints on getting the stride rate *down*, or am I
    >running my tempos too fast?

    I didn't measure my stride rate running today, but noticed that it was completely in lock step with
    my heart rate (as it apparently always is and has been). And I suspect this is true for most
    runners. In my case, this probably means between 160-165 now.
     
  7. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    Mark wrote:

    > I didn't measure my stride rate running today, but noticed that it was completely in lock step
    > with my heart rate (as it apparently always is and has been). And I suspect this is true for most
    > runners.

    I'm sorry. I just don't buy this. There is no conceivable physiological mechanism that locks heart
    rate to cadence. Of course if you're running a steady pace on level ground and you're not
    dehydrating or otherwise changing your energy reserves, temperature (or any other physiological
    variable that affects every runner on a long run), then your heart rate will be fairly steady.

    I believe most runners however, maintain a fairly constant cadence over a relatively wide speed
    range (by spending more time in the air) and naturally, their heart rates rise as their *speed*
    increases, not their cadence.

    Tim

    --
    Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
    http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/speyside or http://www,justgiving.com/speyside if you're a UK
    tax payer.
     
  8. Phil M.

    Phil M. Guest

    "Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bvrrcv$vmq1e
    [email protected]:

    >> I didn't measure my stride rate running today, but noticed that it was completely in lock step
    >> with my heart rate (as it apparently always is and has been). And I suspect this is true for most
    >> runners.
    >
    > I'm sorry. I just don't buy this. There is no conceivable physiological mechanism that locks heart
    > rate to cadence.

    Maybe he's got heart rate confused with respiration rate.

    -Phil
     
Loading...
Loading...