Source
r/trailrunning•
jakethepeg111

Does your cadence for running stretches drop while trailrunning in mountains?

On the road, I am working to increase my cadence and running form from a leisurely 150 to around 170+ steps per minute. I have recently used a metronome app beeping quietly in the background and manage OK, although it does not yet feel natural.

However, on the trail, which for me is in low Alpine mountains - very rolling with 500-700 metres climb in a 2 hour run, my cadence drops right back down to a base of 145. This is just for the parts where I am running and excludes the stretches where I have to walk because it is too steep to run (data from Garmin run cadence graph).

I want to say first that what I love about back country running is to get away from obsessive measuring of form and metrics, but, all the same, I am curious if others see their cadences drop down like this in hilly/mountainous terrain compared to on the road.

Thanks.

Posted May 8, 2022, 7:24 AM UTC

333
rrocr•

yes

6
hand_truck•

Maybe I'm the odd one here, but reading the comments and I might be the only person saying my cadence increases on trails. I try to pick up my knees more when I hit the trail (gotta run 0.75 miles to/from my house to the trail network); the high knees shortens my stride and increases turnover. And I notice as soon as I hit pavement to head back home my stride stretches out and cadence drops.

5
AhoyGoFuckYourself•

Why is this sub so against cadence? Increasing my cadence helped me run further and stay healthy. I use it on trails too and, yes, I agree it is harder to maintain high cadence while trail running. I like to imagine there is a really small band around my ankles and if I stride too far I will fall. It's definitely a helpful tool to use if you're trying to keep your body healthy while running.

3
Denning76•

Depends on the terrain really. I don't look at the numbers, but know that it is relatively high going up due to small quick steps, and very high going downhill. I just wouldn't think about it - self-select what works best for you given the terrain in question.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
stand-n-wipe•

I’m gonna stay out of the debate about whether it matters but I’ll say It looks like my cadence does drop on trails but not by a ton, maybe 10 spm. But I agree with the other commenter that terrain will effect that number a lot.

If you really want to increase your cadence on the trails you should probably focus on shorter stride since tempo will be too variable.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
jaguarj1m•

It's like swimming in the ocean versus a pool. Of course it's going to drop. Honestly, your cadence probably has less effect on your injuries than your diet and whether you do any stretching. What are you so concerned about injuring?

1
jakethepeg111OP•

Shin splints and plantar fasciitis were problems that I seem to have solved with fast cadence - short stride running on road. On trails, there also a risk of turning an ankle - at least the trails I run on. Like most people, I just want to run healthy and avoid injury as much as possible.

1
jaguarj1m•

I do a lot of trail running and that's not the best way to prevent that kind of injury. With faster cadence you generate more impact. Look up the knees over toes guy on YouTube. If you have shin pain the knees over toes technique will solve that. For plantar fasciatis get better shoes with lots of cushioning. Try the altra Olympus 4 for proper trail running cushioning or something like that that has a lot of cushioning.

-1
jakethepeg111OP•

My running shop (mountain town where I live) recommended me La Sportiva Jackal trail shoes that have some type of protection (resistant layer?) in the sole. This means stones do not deform the sole much as I step on them, a total contrast to my previous cheap trail shoes.

I will check out the knees over toes guy. Thanks.

1
krejenald•

with faster cadence you generate more impact

This sounds like the opposite to what I've heard from every other source, which recommend shortening stride and increasing cadence as a means to reduce impact and increase efficiency

1
Frequent_Knowledge65•

Yeah, he’s dead wrong on every point.

1
jaguarj1m•

For reference, I run 3 miles a day on a proper Socal mountainous trail and I'm not a spring chicken.

0
Frequent_Knowledge65•

Not really. My cadence is always around 180 when running normally (easy to check with smart watch). Running in sandals it’d be almost impossible to run at 150spm

1
jaguarj1m•

The Olympus 4 do as well. I don't really feel the rocks.

0
MichaelV27•

Why does your cadence matter.

-3†
jakethepeg111OP•

Faster cadence, shorter stride, less heel strike so less injury. Also higher efficiency so faster pace.

It is a question of so-called good running form. Whether one subscribes to this is another question, but it is running lore.

I cannot tell from your question if it is genuine, or just mocking my question as in "who cares?"

Edit: good short video on the subject of " natural running" (link was wrong - updated)

1†
Denning76•

The problem you have got is that you are trying to take principles which may apply on road or track, which are consistent surfaces, and trying to apply them to inconsistent ones.

12
jakethepeg111OP•

I agree with you. This is the reason for my question i.e. do we apply running principles from the road to the trail? e.g. cadence, foot-strike etc

One thought I had is that on the road, it's not necessary to plan foot placement, while on trail, I'm continually scanning the ground (for rocks under leaves, snakes etc) and maybe this naturally results in a more careful slower average cadence.

2
Denning76•

Well I totally depends. I don't need a fancy watch to know that my cadence is significantly higher that it is at any other time, on a descent mid-race for instance.

-1
heushb•

I’m new to trail running (probably 4-5 runs so far) and I keep finding mixed info on cadence, some say 180-190 is ideal, does it really not matter?

I get what you are saying though, I think. Cadence down a steep hill would be inconsistent with a flat surface.

1
jakethepeg111OP•

"some say 180-190 is ideal, does it really not matter?"

higher cadence and short stride, avoiding heel strike, should be better for efficiency and injury avoidance (see linked video above), but you are right, there is a lot of controversy over the (in)famous 180 value which was based on pro athletes in races. More sensible common advice is 150s are a bit low while high 160s-170s are fine.

Edit: And this applies to road running - not sure about trail, hence my original post.

1
MichaelV27•

Cadence seriously does not matter. A shorter stride does.

-10
offalt•

This is a meaningless statement. Cadence and stride length are intimately related. Pace = stride length * cadence. While holding pace constant, a shorter stride length means increased cadence.

Telling someone cadence doesn't matter but a shorter stride does, is a self contradicting statement without meaning.

13
MichaelV27•

So why is cadence important, then? What benefit does someone get from hitting a cadence number?

-4†