The research by Linda Schücker and Lucy Parrington at the University of Munster, Germany, looked at 12 different recreational runners. The aim of the study was to determine whether external or internal factors affected our running economy.

The findings could be interesting for anyone who tries to focus on form or breathing during their running.

Methodology

After a short warm-up, runners undertook three six minute efforts at 60% 1km best. It was a moderate effort level and then a three minute rest between efforts. The researchers intervened at 30 second intervals to affect the focus. Commands were given depending on whether the focus was to be internal or external. These included “pay attention to breathing in and out” and “pay attention to the push-off and the forward movement of your legs”.

Motion sensors monitored the runners’ movements. At two and four minutes physiological markers were noted in each interval.

The findings

Previous work established that an external focus, a video of a running track around a lake, was the same as a control condition so it was not included. The difference was clear between external (video) focus and internal (form and breathing). Those focusing on the video were more efficient.

When runners focused on both their form and their breathing they became less efficient runners. Those focusing on their breathing took on more oxygen, but at the cost of running economy.

Runners focusing on their form generally increased vertical oscillation, the distance off the ground they were between each footfall, and this led to an increase in running economy costs.

So we’re better off focusing on our surroundings or something ahead than on ourselves.

What should we focus on?

What does this mean to the average runner? Or an elite runner for that matter. Well, one aspect that might be interesting to investigate is whether this changes due to our levels of fatigue. Is a runner at the end of a marathon going to benefit more from focusing on their form or breathing than someone running shorter distances?

It is certainly food for thought. When we are running fresh we most likely will run in the optimal way for our body. When our conscious mind tries to intervene at this stage, it is less efficient than our subconscious ability to just run. Will tiredness and fatigue affect the results?

A previous study done by Schemer looked at athletes undertaking three by 10 minute efforts at 85% effort to see if the attentional focus also had an effect at higher intensities. They found that it did. At higher intensities, it is still better to have an external focus, although this study just looked at breathing as the internal focus, not form.

We already know that smiling will help performance. Do athletes now need to resist the urge to think about their breathing and form, as we have always been told in the past? Focus ahead, look around, but whatever you do, don’t forget to run fast.

Are you a fan of Fast Running? Then please support us. For as little as the price of a monthly magazine you can support Fast Running – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

The post Thinking about your running movement makes you less efficient appeared first on Fast Running.

Fast Running spoke with the Profeet Sports Lab manager Dan Cracknell, who has a degree in Injury Rehabilitation and Profeet Technician Marthe Solberg, who has a Sports Science degree with Biomechanics. They seemed like sensible people to ask.

“Cadence is a simple way to adjust running form as it is the easiest gait parameter to assess and adapt,” was Dan’s opening gambit.

“Cadence itself, isn’t bad or good but the effects it has on other parameters more closely linked to injury or performance make it worth looking at, such as braking force, ground contact time and vertical displacement/force.”

This isn’t just a free improvement though, Marthe warns, as “in modifying cadence, the body needs to adapt to those demands often requiring greater mobility and strength to maintain form. Upping cadence by as little as 5 steps per minute will result in dramatically increased workload initially, so you will need to modify your overall training load.”

So what should you be running? Is there a correct cadence you can tell us right now?

“It’s not that simple,” is Dan’s response. “As speed, leg length, braking force, terrain and race distance might all have an effect on your cadence and the optimal cadence for the occasion.” Which isn’t really surprising given how different all runners can be.

So it’s not just 180 on the nose?

“Cadence increases with speed and is related to stride length – As it increases with pace, you shouldn’t aim for the same cadence at varied paces. 180 steps per minute is only an average.” A 2005 study found that it was also dependent on leg length and total height which differs individually.

So should we be looking at our cadence? Can it help us improve? “It could help if you’re getting injured as cadence is linked to contact time,” says Marthe. “The longer your foot is in contact with the ground the more strain the surrounding tissues will experience in workload. Hence upping the cadence and lowering contact time could be beneficial to prevent injury.”

Depending on what you’re preparing for, it might be worth investigating and there are plenty of ways to do this, as many GPS watches will tell you what your cadence average is for any given run.

If you’re trotting along the road then expect something different when you’re off on a fell run, but even just being aware of the figures can help.  

The 180 steps per minute that is bandied around comes from Dr. Jack Daniels looking into elite runners and coming up with an average. But is the fact they are running 180 steps per minute the real reason they’re elite runners?

Commonality doesn’t always equal causation. If we had a competition to find the best baker in the world and the top ten were all over six foot tall it doesn’t mean their height is why they make good cakes. It could be a factor, the same as cadence could be a factor in elite running, but it’s likely that it’s one of a number of reasons and might not be the same for everyone.

How can you improve efficiency?

At Profeet Sports Lab there is a 3D Motion Lab that looks at a range of parameters to assess your running efficiency and I have been tested there on several occasions, taking advice on board and working with my physio to try and improve overall efficiency over time (and post a knee operation).

Cadence wasn’t something we looked at changing, as a 24hr runner it’s often around 175-180 at my race pace for the flat stuff, but it varies differently when on the mountains, trails, rocks and snow that make up a lot of ultra running playgrounds.

Dan and Marthe both stressed that cadence is just one factor that could affect efficiency and injury risk. The pair pointed out to one example from a study led by Bryan Heiderscheit in 2011, that indicated that an increased cadence could lower injury risk.

There’s no simple answer to this question, however. You can’t just give the magic number a go and test, but it is something worth investigating. Use your GPS watch or time yourself for a minute around a track or on a treadmill to give an idea and try some experimenting.

When starting as an ultra runner I measured a one-mile section, wore a HR strap and tested just what effort it was taking to cover that mile at a set speed, trying to change things like stride length and cadence to see the benefits. It wasn’t the most scientific of experiments, but now I run for Great Britain so that could well be a contributing reason?

If you do want to try an increase your cadence it has been recommended to use a metronome (you can get one on your phone or watch these days, you don’t have to steal one from a piano teacher) or listening to music that beats at the same rate, such as “Livin’ La Vida Loca” by Ricky Martin. What a tune.

Ultimately you need to find out what works for you, do some experimenting and maybe talk to a few experts.

The post Cadence – is 180 the magic number? appeared first on Fast Running.