Cadence, stride length, ground contact time, and vertical oscillation

viperlogic

With the FR620 comes running dynamics, which includes cadence, stride length, ground contact time, and vertical oscillation.

In looking at this data, I'm very rarely in the "green zone", but more so the "orange zone" for cadence and vertical oscillation. Taking zones out of it, below are my numbers and I'm curious to know are they actually "bad" considering I'm 6'1 tall. I understand that some taller folk tend to have lower cadence but is mine too low? Never had coaching thou looking to join a club next month.

In recent 4 mile race (24:42)...
Avg Run Cadence: 158
Avg Vertical Oscillation: 10.5 cm
Avg Ground Contact Time: 259 ms
Avg Stride Length: 1.65 m

PaulieC

viperlogic wrote: »

With the FR620 comes running dynamics, which includes cadence, stride length, ground contact time, and vertical oscillation.

In looking at this data, I'm very rarely in the "green zone", but more so the "orange zone" for cadence and vertical oscillation. Taking zones out of it, below are my numbers and I'm curious to know are they actually "bad" considering I'm 6'1 tall. I understand that some taller folk tend to have lower cadence but is mine too low? Never had coaching thou looking to join a club next month.

In recent 4 mile race (24:42)...
Avg Run Cadence: 158
Avg Vertical Oscillation: 10.5 cm
Avg Ground Contact Time: 259 ms
Avg Stride Length: 1.65 m

I don't know for definite, but I would think that the aim would be to have a cadence of ~180 and I guess the vertical oscillation would need to be as low as possible so you are not wasting energy going up and down when you could be using it going forward. The Ground contact time would decrease on the increase in cadence, as would the stride length, but I guess getting the cadence up while not decreasing the stride length would make you faster.
Running used to be simple

munkee

This topic is far from simple, and numbers in isolation don't really mean anything.

The best advice I've read is to focus on a few key points like posture (run upright), try to run 'light', and do form drills and let your running style evolve from those, rather than just focusing on isolated variables like cadence or consciously placing your feet.

These are interesting on cadence:

stride rate or length...are outcomes of what you do. They are feedback. They are not things you directly change. If you take care of the mechanics, whether it’s arm swing, body position, force application, footstrike or whatever, the rate and length will optimize

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html

I think perhaps the biggest take home message here is that stride rate can and does vary considerably with speed, and also between individuals. The 180 number gets thrown around a lot, but I see no reason why this number need be the gold standard that everyone should shoot for

http://runblogger.com/2011/09/running-speed-human-variability-and.html

And some thoughts on optimal running technique:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/09/running-technique-part-iv-running-technique-101-some-simple-changes/

Good stuff here too:
http://www.coachjayjohnson.com/

drquirky

IMO this is all over complicating things run more, train harder and smarter and you'll get faster. The Boston Marathon was just won by a brutal heel striker with a jerky cadence.

Sacksian

I also think the "180" cadence thing is not worth fussing too much over. My stride rate is about 160 during easy running and only averages over 180 when doing intervals (I'm your height, OP). Nonetheless, thinking about how I run has been useful in my experience.

With regard to cadence and stride length - what I have found, in shorter races, is that I have had good results from concentrating on high turnover for the first half / two-thirds and then switching to concentrating on stride length towards the end as I tire and can no longer maintain the same rate. I notice that my "kick" (when it's there!) comes from simply lengthening my stride, rather than increasing my cadence.

I think, in general but particularly among people who came late to running (like myself!) that the idea of running fast as a technique can be overlooked.

I've found that running faster has come to me easier through focusing on technique than by pushing myself harder or through exertion in training. This is just my experience and others will differ. It may be that I like the technical aspect more because I can't really do high mileage.

bambergbike

It may not be worth worrying about or fussing over, but it might be worth experimenting with. Small, clip-on metronomes are cheap - I picked one up for €6 on ebay, including postage, so you could buy or borrow one and head out a few times with it to establish what running at fixed cadences that are higher than your normal one does or doesn't do for you. 160, 165, 170, 175. I haven't been out with mine yet, so I don't know if I'm going to find the exercise useful, but it seemed worth trying.

I'd agree (with Sacksian) that technique matters more than numbers, but looking at numbers (or inflicting them on yourself, as with the metronome) might be a stimulus for playing around with your technique and seeing how much your paces can vary at given cadences as you shorten your stride or open it out more. So far I have been using hills rather than numbers - if I don't shorten my stride enough on steep hills (while trying to keep some sort of turnover going) my achilles tendon reminds me of what the plan was.

viperlogic

Thanks for all the comments and links. I've been self taught from reading books, blogs and forums last 2 years but getting to the point where I feel I may need some coaching tips to go the next step in my training (sub 18 5K) and hence will be joining an athletics club next month as running form can't really be explained over a keyboard or book. Looking to join St. Finbarrs AC in Cork where Fergus O’Donovan, Marion Lyons and Ken Devine are the coaches.

drquirky

viperlogic wrote: »

Thanks for all the comments and links. I've been self taught from reading books, blogs and forums last 2 years but getting to the point where I feel I may need some coaching tips to go the next step in my training (sub 18 5K) and hence will be joining an athletics club next month as running form can't really be explained over a keyboard or book. Looking to join St. Finbarrs AC in Cork where Fergus O’Donovan, Marion Lyons and Ken Devine are the coaches.

I'm not trying to be a prick but running form won't be the magic bullet that gets you to sub 18 5k- intelligent, focused training will though.

Sunday >90min lsr
Monday 1hr easy
Tuesday 20-30min tempo @ LT
Weds 45mins easy
Thurs session (or if racing on weekend easy run) like 8x800 @5k pace or 6x1k etc etc or 10 x 1min hills
Fri 40mins recovery or rest day
Saturday 5k 10k race or 1hr steady

Do this for 6-8 weeks and I guarantee you will improve more than pedantic form analysis will do. That form / cadence stuff really is only for very marginal gains

Train smart run fast it is simple

viperlogic

drquirky wrote: »

I'm not trying to be a prick but running form won't be the magic bullet that gets you to sub 18 5k- intelligent, focused training will though.

Completely agree and its the training I have a good grasp of, my training already consists of LSR's, hills, tempos, speedwork, easy, races etc but form is something I have never looked at as I always run solo and never had a knowledgeable runner/coach observe me and give pointers. So its just like Tesco, every little helps!

T runner

drquirky wrote: »

I'm not trying to be a prick but running form won't be the magic bullet that gets you to sub 18 5k- intelligent, focused training will though.

Sunday >90min lsr
Monday 1hr easy
Tuesday 20-30min tempo @ LT
Weds 45mins easy
Thurs session (or if racing on weekend easy run) like 8x800 @5k pace or 6x1k etc etc or 10 x 1min hills
Fri 40mins recovery or rest day
Saturday 5k 10k race or 1hr steady

Do this for 6-8 weeks and I guarantee you will improve more than pedantic form analysis will do. That form / cadence stuff really is only for very marginal gains

Train smart run fast it is simple

Don't agree with that. A well balanced training regime is a must. But eliminating obvious form defects will help for all distances. "Sitting in the bucket" for example means the hips are too far back. This reduces stride length, increases foot contact time and reduces cadence. Easily rectified.

One poster said that easy to fast cadence changes from 160 to 180. That means that running form is most likely poor for the easy runs, sitting in the bucket with heavy strides.

Also a runner should be relaxed at all times. This means that passive muscles are completely passive when they are supposed to be.

Uphill training where unnecessary effort is like spilling water in a dessert: it really amplifies and punishes defects in form. Its the same on the flat...we just don't notice it as much.

Being mindful of staying upright, relaxed, hips slightly forward during all running but specially during faster intervals and uphill running will return improvements. Its not the be all and end all, but its too significant to be marginalized.

rom

I would give little mass in garmin stats of any kind. I should have run sub 2:45 the other weekend according to them, all my sessions are overtraining and I run my recover runs too slow. The only feature of the 620 that is any good is the recovery calculator.

dublin runner

T runner wrote: »

Uphill training where unnecessary effort is like spilling water in a dessert: it really amplifies and punishes defects in form. Its the same on the flat...we just don't notice it as much.

Interesting. I have always been instructed that the best way to work on form is to really concentrate on good posture etc when doing hill intervals especially. Would you agree with that? I have always personally found that hill sessions really exaggerate all aspects of form etc and highlight the good and the bad more than regular 'flat' running.

ecoli

T runner wrote: »

Don't agree with that. A well balanced training regime is a must. But eliminating obvious form defects will help for all distances. "Sitting in the bucket" for example means the hips are too far back. This reduces stride length, increases foot contact time and reduces cadence. Easily rectified.

I don't think its as simple as that. You would need to looks at the underlying issues as to why the pelvis is rotated. There can be an infinite number of reasons for this, some of which can be easily fixed, others which are a more long term project.

I think the point drquirky is trying to make is that we often look to the fine of running and all the "science" around it to the detriment of the over all picture.

You can go into incredible detail with regards the sport (and they have over the last 20 years with the development of sports science) but to be honest for the vast majority of people it is too much and we have got to an era where there is so much "science" as to why to do x, y and z that we spend more time learning the why rather than doing.

One of the biggest "developments" in the last number of years to marathon running in western culture is Aerobic Threshold style runs which have been attributed to improving standards however these were present 30 years ago under the term "a good hard run" as effective despite not knowing the why's of how they benefit.

Running can be as simple or complex as you want it to be but understanding these things is not some magic formula that will propel you to new heights over the uneducated runner, most of the time it they are probably blissfully ignorance of the why yet are still doing it.

* denotes the fact that alot of the new fad science claims are supported with poor research

T runner

ecoli wrote: »

I don't think its as simple as that. You would need to looks at the underlying issues as to why the pelvis is rotated. There can be an infinite number of reasons for this, some of which can be easily fixed, others which are a more long term project.

I think saying there is an infinite amount of reasons for the "sitting in the bucket" posture is over complicating things Ecoli. In most cases for relative beginners the cause is sitting at a desk all day.

Easily rectified: think relaxed, think running tall, think glide during all runs but especially during fast intervals and uphill running. There is nothing complicated or difficult about that and coaches have been advocating it since Lydiard and before. Rectifying this makes a significant difference to cadence, stride length and ground contact time.

If you do these things you will run faster/with greater economy than if you don't. The guys back in the 80's were running tall and relaxed too...because they practised it....they didn't think it was too complicated.

T runner

dublin runner wrote: »

Interesting. I have always been instructed that the best way to work on form is to really concentrate on good posture etc when doing hill intervals especially. Would you agree with that? I have always personally found that hill sessions really exaggerate all aspects of form etc and highlight the good and the bad more than regular 'flat' running.

id be inclined to agree with that, as long as the running is as relaxed as possible.

Sacksian

T runner wrote: »

I think saying there is an infinite amount of reasons for the "sitting in the bucket" posture is over complicating things Ecoli. In most cases for relative beginners the cause is sitting at a desk all day.

Easily rectified: think relaxed, think running tall, think glide during all runs but especially during fast intervals and uphill running. There is nothing complicated or difficult about that and coaches have been advocating it since Lydiard and before. Rectifying this makes a significant difference to cadence, stride length and ground contact time.

If you do these things you will run faster/with greater economy than if you don't. The guys back in the 80's were running tall and relaxed too...because they practised it....they didn't think it was too complicated.

There were guys in the 80s who "sat in the bucket" too and did okay:



That guy in particular has quite strong views on running form!

I tend to sit in the (metaphorical) bucket in races when I'm tired not when I'm running slowly - even with low cadence of 160, I'm running tall and relaxed when I run easy!!!

For short races, you're generally running so fast that it's difficult to even get into any real or imagined bucket until the end. However, if you've overcooked it, that deterioration in form is something that's difficult to fight against. All of this is *IMO*.

Bucket.

ecoli

T runner wrote: »

I think saying there is an infinite amount of reasons for the "sitting in the bucket" posture is over complicating things Ecoli. In most cases for relative beginners the cause is sitting at a desk all day.

Easily rectified: think relaxed, think running tall, think glide during all runs but especially during fast intervals and uphill running. There is nothing complicated or difficult about that and coaches have been advocating it since Lydiard and before. Rectifying this makes a significant difference to cadence, stride length and ground contact time.

If you do these things you will run faster/with greater economy than if you don't. The guys back in the 80's were running tall and relaxed too...because they practised it....they didn't think it was too complicated.

I would agree with sitting at a desk having alot to answer for but as a result of this we see rises in weak glutes, tight erector spinae, tight hip flexors, weak hamstrings, weak abs (or indeed a combination of these as with lower cross syndrome). These cannot simply be rectified with the idea of staying relaxed an staying tall.

I think it is an over simplification to simply aim to consciously change this as people spend hours a week on things such as core, drills, flexibility and other ancillary work in order to correct imbalances which play a role on posture as well as injury prevent.

I am in the same corner with you however regarding form and I think there is a great deal of gain to be made but I think majority of people view this as the element which will take them to the next level and tend to look at all the extra stuff to the detriment of a good solid foundation of a training plan.

T runner

ecoli wrote: »

I would agree with sitting at a desk having alot to answer for but as a result of this we see rises in weak glutes, tight erector spinae, tight hip flexors, weak hamstrings, weak abs (or indeed a combination of these as with lower cross syndrome). These cannot simply be rectified with the idea of staying relaxed an staying tall.

I think it is an over simplification to simply aim to consciously change this as people spend hours a week on things such as core, drills, flexibility and other ancillary work in order to correct imbalances which play a role on posture as well as injury prevent.

Were talking about a common and specific defect here for beginners which is "sitting in the bucket". Any runner is strong enough already to correct such a postural defect. Running tall and relaxed has rarely injured anyone. For a beginner to spend hours a week messing around with core, drills etc to correct sitting in the bucket is madness.

These things are helpful sure, but the correct core muscles can be used and crucially strenghtened in the most specific manner by simply running tall and relaxed.

ecoli

T runner wrote: »

These things are helpful sure, but the correct core muscles can be used and crucially strenghtened in the most specific manner by simply running tall and relaxed.

The only issue I would have with this that muscle weakness goes hand in handy with antagonistic muscle tightness so the issue might not always be a case of strengthening weaken muscles through an active change but rather fixing problems to facilitate proper form. This is the reason why I stated that it is not just as simple of making a concious change.

For example the contractile force of a psoas spasm is something which you body will struggle to correct (hence the number of people who result in lower back pain as a result)

T runner

Sacksian wrote: »

There were guys in the 80s who "sat in the bucket" too and did okay:

[......
That guy in particular has quite strong views on running form!

I tend to sit in the (metaphorical) bucket in races when I'm tired not when I'm running slowly - even with low cadence of 160, I'm running tall and relaxed when I run easy!!!

For short races, you're generally running so fast that it's difficult to even get into any real or imagined bucket until the end. However, if you've overcooked it, that deterioration in form is something that's difficult to fight against. All of this is *IMO*.

Bucket.

Some people might sit in the bucket and do OK, sure. For the vast majority it is a defect that is easily corrected by running tall etc IMO.

It is hard to have a differential of 20 strides per minute without more leg hang time, harder foot strike, heel landing thus longer contact time etc. All of those can be explained by sitting in the bucket.

Normally running tall, with hips comfortably forward should give a natural cadence at all paces. If you're going from 180 to 160, something has changed. If there is a change it is most likely your posture. My opinion only obviously.

T runner

ecoli wrote: »

The only issue I would have with this that muscle weakness goes hand in handy with antagonistic muscle tightness so the issue might not always be a case of strengthening weaken muscles through an active change but rather fixing problems to facilitate proper form. This is the reason why I stated that it is not just as simple of making a concious change.

For example the contractile force of a psoas spasm is something which you body will struggle to correct (hence the number of people who result in lower back pain as a result)

I don't honestly know what any of that means. I do know that when a coach (inc the great ones) sees a runner/beginner sitting in the bucket he probably will say "run tall and relaxed ". He probably wont say "go see your physio". And as the runner will improve his form without injury: the coach would probably be right.