Running cadence too fast?



R

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?
 
B

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?
 
F

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.
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
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/
 
B

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,
 
M

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.
 
T

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.
 
P

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