Changes

So what should your cadence be? It's generally accepted that a turnover of 90 stepsstrides/minute is optimum for most people (180 steps/minute if counting both feet). To start off, check your cadence when you are running and if the number is 90 or higher, pat yourself on the back. If the number is lower than 90 then you should look at changing your cadence. Your cadence does not have to be exactly 90, and is likely to change somewhat with your pace and terrain. A faster pace may have a higher cadence, as will up or down hill sections. <br/><br/>It's unclear if cadences above 90 strides/minutes are better or not. It's been observed that elite runners in a 5K have cadences of 95-100+<ref name="Treadlightly"/>, but those runners are moving at a much faster pace than most runners. The research discussed below suggests there is a "goldilocks zone" of optimal cadence, so it's reasonable that cadence could be too high for efficiency. It seems likely to me that the upper limit of efficient cadence is related to pace, but more research is needed in this area.

The cheapest way is to measure your cadence is to simply count how many times your foot touches the ground in a minute. However, it's much easier to use a [[Best Running Watch| running watch]] that displays cadence. Some watches will use a small [[Footpod]] attached to your shoe, but others make use of an internal accelerometer. (There's also more advanced options, such as [[RunScribe]] which make Footpods that measure a wide range of biomechanical data in addition to pace and [[Cadence]], including Braking G's, Impact G's, Ground Contact Time, [[Foot strikeStrike]], and more.)==The accuracy of these approaches is covered in my [[Comparison of Cadence Monitors==]]. [[File:Cadence Comparison.jpg|none|thumb|1000px500px|A comparison of cadence monitoring devices during See my [[High Intensity Interval Training]].]]The graph above is from a [[High Intensity Interval Training]] session, which is a challenging test Comparison of Cadence monitors. The [[WarmupMonitors]] and [[Cooldown]] sections of the run are not included, just the intervals. You can see the cadence rise to above 100 during the fast, high intensity intervals, then drop back to my for more normal 90, then a further drop as I walk for a short period before commencing details on the next interval. I don't normally walk, but I wanted to challenge the cadence monitors a little extra. I avoided looking at any device during the run, as that can prevent the internal accelerometer based systems from operating without the normal arm swing. * I wore five watches, two accuracy of [[Footpod]]s and the Garmin HRM Run sensor for the run. * The blue line is from a [[Polar M400]] with the Polar Stride Sensor [[Footpod]]. The Stride Sensor is huge, but it seems to provide the best data. The Polar data is smoother (greater sampling frequency), and reflects the changes in Cadence a little better than other sources. For instance, I stood stationary for a few seconds around the 7:30 mark, and the Polar reflects this drop better. * The purple line is from a [[Garmin 920XT]] with a Garmin Footpod. This is very nearly as good as the Polar data, and matches the changes fairly accurately. * The green line is from a [[Garmin Epix]] with the Garmin HRM Run heart rate strap Best Running Watch| watches that also monitors measure cadence. This matches the Garmin Footpod nicely, showing a similar sampling frequency. * The red line is from a [[Garmin 225]] that is relying on its internal accelerometer. The Garmin 225 is firmly strapped onto my wrist to ensure its optical heart rate monitor is effective. This is rather tighter than I would like, and mostly it does okay. You can see it's a little delayed in some of its responsesll find more detail, and at the 5:00 and 6:30 minute marks it misses the rise completely. While it's far from perfect, it does a reasonable job. * The orange line is from an [[Suunto Ambit3]] using its internal accelerometer. The Ambit3 was reasonably firmly strapped to my arm, but nowhere near as tight such as the Garmin 225. I suspect it's this looseness that causes the poor data for the Ambit3. You can see that on the fast intervals the Ambit3 loses the plot completely and assumes that my cadence drops to zero. [[File:Cadence Comparison2.jpg|none|thumb|1000px|A comparison of cadence monitoring devices during a [[Long RunHigh Intensity Interval Training]]session.]]The graph above is the comparison of a [[Garmin 920XT]] with a [[Footpod]] (red line) with a [[Garmin 225]] using its internal accelerometer (blue line). You can see the internal sensor is far noisier, but worse, it has an overall bias. The Footpod showed an average cadence of 91.1 while the internal sensor was 89.3. That's not a huge difference, but it's far from ideal. I plan to perform further tests of the internal accelerometer based devices as time allows.

=The adaptation processAdaptation Process=

* A cadence of around 90 is also associated with greater running efficiency [[Running Economy]] than lower or higher cadences<ref name="Hamill-1995"/>, though another study found 85 was optimal<ref name="LiebermanWarrener2015"/>. One problem with these studies is that they allow little or no time for the runner to adapt to the tested cadence, and I think this makes it probable that the detected Running Economy is not representative.

[[File:Cadence and VO2.jpg|none|thumb|500px|A chart showing the oxygen cost and heart rate for different cadences. (Cadence values in red added)<ref name="Hamill-1995"/>. The highest cadence levels had impaired [[Running Economy]] but it should be noted the runners had relatively little time to adapt to the different values.]]