UKC

Does anyone have any specifics on cadence for fell running or is it the same science principals for all other kind of running. Mine is apparently 20 spm slower than the perfect 180.

In reply to simon1965: If it's really muddy and long stride is a help.

Are there science principals here? Really?

In reply to simon1965:

depends on if im going up or down or on the flat. I don't know what mine is when going up but it's considerably higher than on the flat and even heading down it can change depending on how steep it is.

In reply to simon1965:

Don't know about cadence, but ...
Up hill and on the flat, if your lungs haven't exploded, you're probably not trying hard enough.
Down hill, if you feel like you're about to loose control, you're probably not trying hard enough.

In reply to simon1965:

Cadence is going to be really hard to work out on a proper fell run due to the terrain and conditions. I'd suggest instead using heart rate monitor and training within a certain zone.

In reply to simon1965:

I have just got a new garmin 920XT so have just started to think about this stuff, stride length, vertical oscilation, ground contact time etc.

My feeling is that it isn't going to be any use during the majority of the race, but if you get all those numbers "right" then it might help you out on a flat sprint finish. Not had chance to play with it yet though, or any idea what the right numbers are.

In reply to ablackett:


A flat sprint finish is just that - a flat sprint finish , regardless of what the numbers tell you might be the right thing.

Trying to assess cadence for anything other than road running seems a bit of a waste of time to me. Everything about the way you run is going to be determined by the terrain - rough, smooth, path, heather, grass, rocky, uphill, seriously uphill, flat, down, steep down. I don't see what's to be gained from trying to maintain a particular cadence over the course of a run. Better, surely, to work how to run on the different types of terrain.

In reply to ablackett:

I've just started using a Garmin 220, which is why I'm asking the question. I've run for twenty odd years, and yes believe me my eyes are popping out and lungs bursting most of the time full on, particularly in races!! But the watch is suggesting my cadence is 160 spm. I've run on the road in the past but because of knee problems all my running is off road, sort of 20 miles a week.

I had presumed that cadence would be difficult to determine on off road circuits/terrain, for all the suggestions made, I was just asking to see if it made any sense to those more use to using the technology.

Cheers for the replies though.

In reply to ablackett:

I find it's more the other way around. Since getting A Garmin Fenix 2, I've paid attention to vertical oscillation & cadence and it has improved my technique which has helped me to improve my running style, efficiency, and stay injury free. But when it comes to a sprint finish, all that goes out of the window for me!

In reply to simon1965:

Shortly after getting my 220 I tried to find out the optimum cadence given my height and pace.
I failed, though I did read some interesting articles.

FWIW my race cadence is 160 (52 min 10k, 1'51 half) so I think if you're doing that off-road it's pretty good. My average for the langdale fell race was 110, but that's a lot steeper than any of the fell races round here. All depends on the terrain, you'll generally take shorter strides, but not necessarily any more of them.

In reply to simon1965:

I’d agree with hokkyokusei, that I’d use it on the road to improve form and technique and that will help when fell racing. I normally have a cadence on the road around 160 but when trying for fast miles etc and concentrating on form as well as pace I’m generally at 170 for 6’30” (@176 bpm). I am well aware that I should be nearer 180 but am not really there yet. I hope that this will help on the fells but time will tell!

Ground Contact time is just a function of cadence I think and vertical oscillation is a bit too airy fairy for me.