I can see that many/most people use a walking gait when running. They are actually running as both feet are off the ground - but the gait is identical to when they are walking. When walking, they stick their leg out in front of their body and fall onto their heel - rinse and repeat. When jogging slowly they do the same and then when running they also do the same except that their higher speed has them airborne.
I’ve tried a few times to increase my cadence while running at MAF and my heart rate shoots up immediately. So I tried to compensate by decreasing my stride length. It just felt awkward and ridiculous at such a relatively slow pace. I just don’t find it necessary to have the same turnover as an elite marathoner at a pace that’s 8 minutes per mile slower than their pace. I average around 158-160 at MAF pace (10:15 per mile on average). On a recent all out 2 mile time trial I averaged a 168 cadence. I have a feeling that I’d be pretty darn close to that “magical” 180 number if I were actually able to run at an elite 4:35 per mile marathon pace. So for now I’ve decided to allow my cadence to be what it naturally wants to be for a given pace and focus on other parts of my form like foot strike and posture and not over striding and such.
oh shit! I just checked my stats and my cadence is between 126-132! I didn't realize how bad for me this is and i def feel it in my shins and feet. I have no idea how to speed up cadence without increasing my heart rate (I am out of shape and get about 7:30min/km and my heart rate is at 170ish for this) Any tips on drastically increasing cadence while lowering heart rate? Yikes!
Heart rate training takes time. Cadence can be changed right away. But there has to be time when speed just doesn't matter. I would start with finding a cadence around 160 while jogging in place to see if you can maintain HR. Then gradually start inching your way forward.
@@AverageRunningPT very helpful thank you!! Ive been trying the MAF method you mentioned at a 160 cadence and it’s helping a lot. Great video; I really appreciate the help!!
If you go for a bike ride and pay close attention to the heart rate monitor, you will see that turning a small gear vs a big gear can assist you in keeping your heart rate in a zone that you desire. I think that principle holds true with running and MAF. When I was not paying any attention to cadence it was a challenge to keep my heart rate low enough. But when I have that fake metronome in my head of about 170+ keeping my HR under MAF is easier. And of course the more you practice anything the better you get. So I agree, it is not necessary to be overly concerned about keeping cadence high as quicker paces. Yet it is helpful to take a look at cadence if someone is finding it challenging starting off with MAF.
And if you turn a small gear slow...? That seems to be more representative of MAF to me. But I understand some people might find it easier with higher cadence.
Novice runner here and I’ve been trying so hard to keep my heart rate low that my cadence is in the 130s. Moving my legs that slow does feel almost a shuffle at times. Would I be better off running at a faster cadence, and taking more walk breaks? Also would be interested in the very basic bio mechanics. Other than not putting my feet too far in front of me I don’t know how I should actually run! High knees? Push off and kick back etc? Maybe I am overthinking this!
Higher cadence usually means better foot landing spot - you dont reach with your foot that much in front of you. So the overall impact of low and high cadence is not pretty similar and is not only about speed.
A relevant vid for sure! Something I've been trying to figure out for a while but here's something I've noticed while training with a metronome set at 180. I was trying to figure out what 180 felt like by feel and it turns out I was never quite able to hit 180 on feel alone (especially near the end of the runs). So for the last 6 weeks or so I tried running with a metronome set at 180 steps per minute. I am convinced there is something to this 180 steps per minute cadence. When I run at around my normal cadence 173 to 175, my form can degrade a bit and I start pushing with my back foot. At 180, I find it difficult to run with bad form. That higher turnover rate forces me to fall forward and pull with my hamstrings. With bad form, I need to force my legs to turn over, which eventually leads to lactic acide buildup. I have a posterior tibialis problem (inner ankle) that I have to manage after every run. At 173 cadence on slow days, on pavement, I need to ice due to inflammation issues. I have found that my ankle is a lot less sore after running at 180 cadence, keeping my heart rate around the MAF zone, over any distance (5K to 30K). My theory is that on lower cadence runs as I get tired, I am pushing off with my back foot which puts stress on the ankles. At 180 cadence it forces me to pull with hamstring, so lot less stress on my ankles. The only caveat is the warm up. I warm up at our 6:20/km pace for first 2 km, (for slow runs or faster workouts, I try to keep my warm up exactly the same) and I find it almost impossible to warm up with a 180 cadence. So my recommendation to anyone reading this - try running a few times with a metronome set at 180 longer than 60 minutes at a time. You may notice something, especially near the end of those runs where you need to consciously hit the 180 cadence fatigued.
My opinion on cadence is this, everybody is unique and different. That magical 180 number was taken from elite runners during their races. And the average for most elite runners came to be 180. Everyone of us has a natural stride length and cadence which is determined by our physical make up and our running form. I believe that it's more important to focus on our running form and our natural stride length, than worrying about cadence. Especially during MAF. Even elite runners, running at training paces are not always going to have a 180 cadence. My cadence falls between 160-175 depend on the type of run or workout. But just because you don't have a high cadence, it doesn't mean that you have bad form or your running efficiency is not optimal.
I run at 180, with 105 heart rate, 5:15 min/km (10-11 km). Lower cadence usually destroys my form, and I drop my heart rate down. I tend to go a little bit aslepp while running, and have to animate myself with high cadence. ;)
I dont know why but when I reduce my cadence from 175-180 to 168-172, my heart rate goes too high (14x -> 17x) even when I run slow down. That is too bad for my body, I feel exhausted even running more slowly.
Unfortunately what most ppl mean when they say “I can’t keep my cadence at x while maintaining y HR” is “I tried once and I couldn’t do it so therefore it doesn’t work for me.” I had to adjust my form with MAF in order to keep my hr low. That meant smaller, quicker steps. Before I used to plod along at about 165 cadence and with MAF it got up to the low 170s. After attending a Chi Running seminar in Feb i ran with a metronome for three months slowly getting my cadence up to 180. It was an adjustment but imo it’s for the better, at least it was for me. I haven’t run with a metronome since end May and my cadence is usually between 178-183 for every single run. Your body just learns how to do it and it feels natural for me now. Cadence should be the same regardless of pace. What changes is the length of the stride. That’s what I believe anyway :)
There are reasonable biomechanical justifications for a higher cadence at fast running speeds. Assuming that you are still keeping good biomechanics, what was the Chi Running justification for higher cadence at lower speeds?
@@AverageRunningPT From what I understand it has to do with efficiency and economy of motion. The whole philosophy behind Chi Running is running with as little effort and minimal impact as possible. Apparently there have been studies done to find out what the optimal cadence is for us humans and they showed that 180 was the magic number. Tbh, I haven't read these studies but what I learned in the Chi Running seminar made a lot of sense to me. They demonstrated some examples of the instructors running at different cadences and the runner running at 180 cadence just looked more natural and at ease in every single example. I think it's generally accepted that 170-190 is what most runners should aim for but when they showed the differences between 170 VS 180 and 180 VS 190, 180 just looked more natural, like you could just see right away that it was the better way. The 170 VS 180 example is what sold me in the end. I was hovering in the low 170's and when I saw someone else running with that same cadence compared to someone running at 180 I knew I had to practice and get my cadence up. It took a while but I got it eventually - it was strangely difficult for me to get from 177 to 180, it took nearly three weeks for it to feel comfortable. I think the idea is that all runners should aim for 180. The two instructors were very different ito body types - the guy was a big, tall, stocky guy and his wife was small and petit. But they both looked at ease running at 180. It's hard to explain but it just looked like it was the better way.
OK, so I couldn't find a reference to the study for the optimal 180 cadence but I found this quote from Dr Mark Cucuzzella's book, Run for Your Life: "The elastic recoil of your legs tends to become optimal as your cadence approaches 180 spm". Mark ran sub 3 hour marathons for 35 consecutive years (I think that's a record?!) and is also a big believer in MAF. Great interview with him on Extramilest podcast, def worth a watch.
@@thatguygreg I have watched pieces of that interview, but it has been awhile. And I do recall him saying that as well. Certainly important to use that elastic recoil to our advantage when racing/training fast, but if out on an easy day recovery run it may be less important. Of course there is the idea that you train muscle memory as well. So I do think that you certainly have a good point here.
When I do my low hr training my cadence drops to around 165. I feel that I can keep my hr under control at that cadence. Trying to force more steps in makes my hr go up. I guess it just feels natural to me. When I go faster my cadence goes up towards 180.
im 6"9 and im supposed to quickstep like a hobbit ?:D i agree 180 is a good guide, this cadence issue is my number 1 trouble with MAF. to stay at 135 i simply HAVE to slow my cadence to around 165 on longer low HR runs. On 5km racepace i easily hit 185 and it feels awesome - but HR jumps to 155-ish and its certainly not sustainable for longer distances/MAF-training in general :)
im 6"9 and im supposed to quickstep like a hobbit ?:D i agree 180 is a good guide, this cadence issue is my number 1 trouble with MAF. to stay at 135 i simply HAVE to slow my cadence to around 165 on longer low HR runs. On 5km racepace i easily hit 185 and it feels awesome - but HR jumps to 155-ish and its certainly not sustainable for longer distances/MAF-training in general :) An important aspect of higher cadence is the lower impact from "skipping over the ground" rather than landing heavy on each step. As long as you feel like youre "skating" across the ground rather than pounding the asphalt - you should be good ?:)
The point is obviously to reduce the ground reaction forces (vertical) but also the braking forces (horizontal/backward). I think if you are focusing on your foot landing close to underneath your center of mass then that is also helpful.
I like the idea of maf but I'm 18. So that means high heart rate around 160+. I'm super fit swam competitively at a high level, eat healthy, with lots of sleep. But I don't believe 160 is what Dr. Maffetone would want. Am I right?
Quoted from Dr. Maffetone's website: "For athletes 16 years of age and under, the formula is not applicable; rather, a MAF HR of 165 should be used." Sounds like he still wants you in that range. Forgive my for not knowing this off the top of my head. Most of the people I work with are 30+ and non-elite.
It is good to have an idea. If you are in the 140-150s then it might be a good idea to bump it up to avoid too much ground reaction force through the joints and tendons.
@@AbbeyRoad1962 So in that case, it kind of is a product of pace. I guess the question is, "What cadence is biomechanically correct for a given runner at a given pace?" Can be quite variable depending on body type.
I can see that many/most people use a walking gait when running. They are actually running as both feet are off the ground - but the gait is identical to when they are walking. When walking, they stick their leg out in front of their body and fall onto their heel - rinse and repeat. When jogging slowly they do the same and then when running they also do the same except that their higher speed has them airborne.
I’ve tried a few times to increase my cadence while running at MAF and my heart rate shoots up immediately. So I tried to compensate by decreasing my stride length. It just felt awkward and ridiculous at such a relatively slow pace. I just don’t find it necessary to have the same turnover as an elite marathoner at a pace that’s 8 minutes per mile slower than their pace. I average around 158-160 at MAF pace (10:15 per mile on average). On a recent all out 2 mile time trial I averaged a 168 cadence. I have a feeling that I’d be pretty darn close to that “magical” 180 number if I were actually able to run at an elite 4:35 per mile marathon pace. So for now I’ve decided to allow my cadence to be what it naturally wants to be for a given pace and focus on other parts of my form like foot strike and posture and not over striding and such.
Awkward is the best word for it for sure.
Whats up, Average Running PT. extremely memorable video. thanks. :)
You bet!
oh shit! I just checked my stats and my cadence is between 126-132! I didn't realize how bad for me this is and i def feel it in my shins and feet. I have no idea how to speed up cadence without increasing my heart rate (I am out of shape and get about 7:30min/km and my heart rate is at 170ish for this)
Any tips on drastically increasing cadence while lowering heart rate? Yikes!
Heart rate training takes time. Cadence can be changed right away. But there has to be time when speed just doesn't matter. I would start with finding a cadence around 160 while jogging in place to see if you can maintain HR. Then gradually start inching your way forward.
@@AverageRunningPT very helpful thank you!! Ive been trying the MAF method you mentioned at a 160 cadence and it’s helping a lot. Great video; I really appreciate the help!!
If you go for a bike ride and pay close attention to the heart rate monitor, you will see that turning a small gear vs a big gear can assist you in keeping your heart rate in a zone that you desire. I think that principle holds true with running and MAF. When I was not paying any attention to cadence it was a challenge to keep my heart rate low enough. But when I have that fake metronome in my head of about 170+ keeping my HR under MAF is easier. And of course the more you practice anything the better you get.
So I agree, it is not necessary to be overly concerned about keeping cadence high as quicker paces. Yet it is helpful to take a look at cadence if someone is finding it challenging starting off with MAF.
And if you turn a small gear slow...? That seems to be more representative of MAF to me. But I understand some people might find it easier with higher cadence.
Novice runner here and I’ve been trying so hard to keep my heart rate low that my cadence is in the 130s. Moving my legs that slow does feel almost a shuffle at times. Would I be better off running at a faster cadence, and taking more walk breaks?
Also would be interested in the very basic bio mechanics. Other than not putting my feet too far in front of me I don’t know how I should actually run! High knees? Push off and kick back etc? Maybe I am overthinking this!
Higher cadence usually means better foot landing spot - you dont reach with your foot that much in front of you. So the overall impact of low and high cadence is not pretty similar and is not only about speed.
Usually...but not always.
A relevant vid for sure! Something I've been trying to figure out for a while but here's something I've noticed while training with a metronome set at 180.
I was trying to figure out what 180 felt like by feel and it turns out I was never quite able to hit 180 on feel alone (especially near the end of the runs). So for the last 6 weeks or so I tried running with a metronome set at 180 steps per minute. I am convinced there is something to this 180 steps per minute cadence.
When I run at around my normal cadence 173 to 175, my form can degrade a bit and I start pushing with my back foot. At 180, I find it difficult to run with bad form. That higher turnover rate forces me to fall forward and pull with my hamstrings. With bad form, I need to force my legs to turn over, which eventually leads to lactic acide buildup.
I have a posterior tibialis problem (inner ankle) that I have to manage after every run. At 173 cadence on slow days, on pavement, I need to ice due to inflammation issues. I have found that my ankle is a lot less sore after running at 180 cadence, keeping my heart rate around the MAF zone, over any distance (5K to 30K). My theory is that on lower cadence runs as I get tired, I am pushing off with my back foot which puts stress on the ankles. At 180 cadence it forces me to pull with hamstring, so lot less stress on my ankles.
The only caveat is the warm up. I warm up at our 6:20/km pace for first 2 km, (for slow runs or faster workouts, I try to keep my warm up exactly the same) and I find it almost impossible to warm up with a 180 cadence.
So my recommendation to anyone reading this - try running a few times with a metronome set at 180 longer than 60 minutes at a time. You may notice something, especially near the end of those runs where you need to consciously hit the 180 cadence fatigued.
Thanks for the advice!
Could you do a video of your warm up and cool down from start to finish? I'm new to running so I only do a few stretches
I will try and get this done sometime soon.
My opinion on cadence is this, everybody is unique and different. That magical 180 number was taken from elite runners during their races. And the average for most elite runners came to be 180. Everyone of us has a natural stride length and cadence which is determined by our physical make up and our running form. I believe that it's more important to focus on our running form and our natural stride length, than worrying about cadence. Especially during MAF. Even elite runners, running at training paces are not always going to have a 180 cadence. My cadence falls between 160-175 depend on the type of run or workout. But just because you don't have a high cadence, it doesn't mean that you have bad form or your running efficiency is not optimal.
Love this! Everyone is different. Embrace the differences.
I run at 180, with 105 heart rate, 5:15 min/km (10-11 km). Lower cadence usually destroys my form, and I drop my heart rate down. I tend to go a little bit aslepp while running, and have to animate myself with high cadence. ;)
Haha...you do what you have to do to stay awake.
Umm are you showing off your stats? Because those are great. I recently started and my heart rate goes to 180 with 6min/km pace
@@sanket5050 I think it is a bit genetic - it is just easy for me to have a low HR while moderate exercise
It’s hard to believe 105 at 5:15, do you have a screenshot of your run metrics?
I dont know why but when I reduce my cadence from 175-180 to 168-172, my heart rate goes too high (14x -> 17x) even when I run slow down. That is too bad for my body, I feel exhausted even running more slowly.
Unfortunately what most ppl mean when they say “I can’t keep my cadence at x while maintaining y HR” is “I tried once and I couldn’t do it so therefore it doesn’t work for me.” I had to adjust my form with MAF in order to keep my hr low. That meant smaller, quicker steps. Before I used to plod along at about 165 cadence and with MAF it got up to the low 170s. After attending a Chi Running seminar in Feb i ran with a metronome for three months slowly getting my cadence up to 180. It was an adjustment but imo it’s for the better, at least it was for me. I haven’t run with a metronome since end May and my cadence is usually between 178-183 for every single run. Your body just learns how to do it and it feels natural for me now. Cadence should be the same regardless of pace. What changes is the length of the stride. That’s what I believe anyway :)
There are reasonable biomechanical justifications for a higher cadence at fast running speeds. Assuming that you are still keeping good biomechanics, what was the Chi Running justification for higher cadence at lower speeds?
Ok, but what makes 180 the magic number? Is every runner supposed to be at 180? Just curious.
@@AverageRunningPT From what I understand it has to do with efficiency and economy of motion. The whole philosophy behind Chi Running is running with as little effort and minimal impact as possible. Apparently there have been studies done to find out what the optimal cadence is for us humans and they showed that 180 was the magic number. Tbh, I haven't read these studies but what I learned in the Chi Running seminar made a lot of sense to me. They demonstrated some examples of the instructors running at different cadences and the runner running at 180 cadence just looked more natural and at ease in every single example. I think it's generally accepted that 170-190 is what most runners should aim for but when they showed the differences between 170 VS 180 and 180 VS 190, 180 just looked more natural, like you could just see right away that it was the better way. The 170 VS 180 example is what sold me in the end. I was hovering in the low 170's and when I saw someone else running with that same cadence compared to someone running at 180 I knew I had to practice and get my cadence up. It took a while but I got it eventually - it was strangely difficult for me to get from 177 to 180, it took nearly three weeks for it to feel comfortable.
I think the idea is that all runners should aim for 180. The two instructors were very different ito body types - the guy was a big, tall, stocky guy and his wife was small and petit. But they both looked at ease running at 180. It's hard to explain but it just looked like it was the better way.
OK, so I couldn't find a reference to the study for the optimal 180 cadence but I found this quote from Dr Mark Cucuzzella's book, Run for Your Life: "The elastic recoil of your legs tends to become optimal as your cadence approaches 180 spm". Mark ran sub 3 hour marathons for 35 consecutive years (I think that's a record?!) and is also a big believer in MAF. Great interview with him on Extramilest podcast, def worth a watch.
@@thatguygreg I have watched pieces of that interview, but it has been awhile. And I do recall him saying that as well. Certainly important to use that elastic recoil to our advantage when racing/training fast, but if out on an easy day recovery run it may be less important. Of course there is the idea that you train muscle memory as well. So I do think that you certainly have a good point here.
When I do my low hr training my cadence drops to around 165. I feel that I can keep my hr under control at that cadence. Trying to force more steps in makes my hr go up. I guess it just feels natural to me. When I go faster my cadence goes up towards 180.
There are differing opinions in the comments of this video, but that seems to be what happens with me as well.
I think 180 is just a guide, give or take 5-10 pending body type.
Agreed.
im 6"9 and im supposed to quickstep like a hobbit ?:D i agree 180 is a good guide, this cadence issue is my number 1 trouble with MAF. to stay at 135 i simply HAVE to slow my cadence to around 165 on longer low HR runs. On 5km racepace i easily hit 185 and it feels awesome - but HR jumps to 155-ish and its certainly not sustainable for longer distances/MAF-training in general :)
im 6"9 and im supposed to quickstep like a hobbit ?:D i agree 180 is a good guide, this cadence issue is my number 1 trouble with MAF. to stay at 135 i simply HAVE to slow my cadence to around 165 on longer low HR runs. On 5km racepace i easily hit 185 and it feels awesome - but HR jumps to 155-ish and its certainly not sustainable for longer distances/MAF-training in general :)
An important aspect of higher cadence is the lower impact from "skipping over the ground" rather than landing heavy on each step. As long as you feel like youre "skating" across the ground rather than pounding the asphalt - you should be good ?:)
The point is obviously to reduce the ground reaction forces (vertical) but also the braking forces (horizontal/backward). I think if you are focusing on your foot landing close to underneath your center of mass then that is also helpful.
I like the idea of maf but I'm 18. So that means high heart rate around 160+. I'm super fit swam competitively at a high level, eat healthy, with lots of sleep. But I don't believe 160 is what Dr. Maffetone would want. Am I right?
Quoted from Dr. Maffetone's website:
"For athletes 16 years of age and under, the formula is not applicable; rather, a MAF HR of 165 should be used."
Sounds like he still wants you in that range. Forgive my for not knowing this off the top of my head. Most of the people I work with are 30+ and non-elite.
How about VO2max in relation to low heart rate training?
Not sure...VO2max is best trained at faster speeds
I run 180 at 7.5 mph or faster but 165 cadets at 5.5 mph. So you should slow down strides per minute when running slowly.
Some believe otherwise
Cadence is one metric of my running that I don’t account for or care about. I don’t even know what my cadence is
It is good to have an idea. If you are in the 140-150s then it might be a good idea to bump it up to avoid too much ground reaction force through the joints and tendons.
Cadence is a product of pace?
Not exactly, but are you at 180 when walking?
@@AverageRunningPT No, when I run walk to control HR I average around 165 SPM
@@AbbeyRoad1962 So in that case, it kind of is a product of pace. I guess the question is, "What cadence is biomechanically correct for a given runner at a given pace?" Can be quite variable depending on body type.
Pace is literally a product of cadence and stride length. So technically cadence is product of the inverse of pace and stride length.
@@franklehouillier8865 to increase your cadence you have shorten your stride length?
Interesting subject🤔
I thought so.
I feel cadence is like a frequency of your body. I feel you cant have 2 cadences one for MAf and one for normal..just my personal view
But do your legs turnover at a faster rate when at an all out sprint?
Cadence is speed dependent
No matter what I try I’m always between 145-155...
For cadence or HR?
@@AverageRunningPT cadence. I got some zero drop shoes to see if it helps.
@@p5rsona have you tried dialing in your ideal cadence with a metronome?
@@AverageRunningPT lol I didn’t actually 😅 thanks coach!
You didn't really correlate cadence vs. low heart rate. You need more structure in relaying information in your videos.
I’ll admit, this video was less organized. But the topic just came to my head and I had to get it out.