Good running cadence: what the step-rate studies show

There is no single good running cadence, and 180 steps per minute is not a target the research sets for everyone. The lab studies compare you with yourself: a step rate 5 to 10% above your own preferred rate, at the same speed, reduced loading at the knee and hip (Heiderscheit et al., 2011).

Cadence is the number of steps you take per minute, counting both feet. Your watch shows it as spm. If you take 166 steps in a minute, that is your cadence, and nothing about it is wrong until you have a reason to change it. This post follows one hypothetical runner through a modest change on easy runs, and it stays inside what the studies measured.

The studies measured joint loading, not injuries or speed

Heiderscheit and colleagues (2011) asked runners to change their step rate while keeping the same speed. Increasing it by 5 to 10% above each runner's preferred rate reduced loading at the knee and hip. The study measured joint mechanics in a lab. It did not follow runners for months and count injuries.

Schubert, Kempf and Heiderscheit (2014) reviewed the wider evidence in a systematic review. A higher stride frequency, meaning shorter strides, reduced vertical oscillation, ground reaction forces and joint loading. The same review states that the evidence does not show it prevents injury.

Two things follow. The reference point is your own preferred rate, not a universal number. And the claim is about mechanics: how hard the joints are loaded at a given speed. Nothing in these sources says a higher cadence makes you faster, so this post does not promise it.

The example runner: 40 km a week, 10 km in 52:00

Tom is hypothetical. He runs four times a week for 40 km: 9 km, 10 km, 9 km and a 12 km long run. The long run is 30% of the week, inside the quarter-to-a-third range. His last 10 km race took 52:00, which is 5:12/km (8:22/mile). His next race is a 10 km on 15 March.

Runapt training plans are mostly easy runs with a smaller number of harder sessions, and Tom's week has that shape. Three runs are easy and one has a short block of quicker running. His easy pace is about 6:20/km (10:11/mile), set by the talk test rather than the watch.

Tom does not want a new training plan. He wants to know whether a slightly quicker step rate on easy runs is worth trying, and how to try it without changing five things at once.

Week 0: measure the cadence you already have

Before changing anything, Tom collects numbers. On two easy runs he reads the average cadence from his watch afterwards. Both show about 166 spm. Some devices report one foot only. If yours says 83, the real figure is 166.

That is his baseline, and it is the right one for the comparison in the study: his own preferred rate at easy pace. Now the arithmetic. Five percent of 166 is about 8, so 174 spm. Ten percent is about 17, so 183 spm. The range the studies tested, for Tom, is 174 to 183.

He is not aiming at 180 because a table says so. 180 happens to sit near the top of his range. A runner starting at 155 would have a range of 163 to 171, and 180 would be a 16% jump.

Weeks 1 to 4: add a few steps, on easy runs only

Tom picks the low end, 5%, and gets there in four weeks in steps of two to three steps per minute. This is one reasonable option, not a rule from the studies. He sets a metronome beat or a watch alert to the target and runs short blocks inside an easy run.

1. Week 1: 168 spm. One easy run, three blocks of three minutes, the rest of the run at his natural rhythm.

2. Week 2: 171 spm. Two easy runs, three blocks of five minutes.

3. Week 3: 174 spm. Two easy runs, three blocks of five minutes.

4. Week 4: hold 174 spm. Two easy runs, two blocks of ten minutes.

The long run and the quicker session stay as they were. Weekly distance stays at 40 km. One change at a time means that a sore spot has one obvious suspect.

What changes in the body is simple arithmetic. At 6:20/km Tom covers 2.63 metres per second. At 166 spm that is 2.77 steps per second, so about 95 cm per step. At 174 spm it is 2.9 steps per second, about 91 cm. Each step is roughly 4 cm shorter, at exactly the same speed.

The common mistake: chasing the beat by running faster

A metronome at 174 feels quick, so runners lift their pace to keep up with it. That defeats the exercise. The studies held speed constant, so the comparison only holds if you do too.

If the beat pulls Tom above 6:20/km, or he can no longer talk in full sentences, he slows down and takes shorter steps instead. On a day with a headwind the pace will drift anyway, and the talk test is the better guide than the watch. The same goes for how slow an easy run should be: the easy run pace guide covers it.

The second mistake is jumping to the target on every run in week 1. That changes too much at once, and you cannot tell what caused any discomfort.

When to stop, and when not to bother

Stop the cadence blocks if you feel pain that changes how you run, or pain that is still there the next morning. Then see a doctor or physio. Do not push through it to finish the four weeks.

If Tom misses a week, he repeats the week he missed rather than doubling up. He does not add cadence blocks to the quicker session to catch up.

And there is a fair case for doing nothing. The studies say nothing about speed or injury rates, so a runner who feels fine at a steady, comfortable rhythm has no study-based reason to change it.

How to adjust the example when your numbers differ

Start from your own cadence at your own easy pace. Multiply by 1.05 and 1.10 to get your range, and aim for the low end first. A baseline of 172 gives 181 to 189. A baseline of 160 gives 168 to 176.

On three runs a week, as in the beginner running days per week post, do the blocks on one or two of the easy runs and keep them short. On 25 km a week, shrink the blocks rather than adding runs.

Your easy pace should come from a recent race, not a goal time. Put a recent result into the VDOT pace calculator, take the easy range from it, and practise the cadence blocks at those paces.

Sources

Heiderscheit, B. C., Chumanov, E. S., Michalski, M. P., Wille, C. M., & Ryan, M. B. (2011). Effects of step rate manipulation on joint mechanics during running. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(2), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ebedf4

Schubert, A. G., Kempf, J., & Heiderscheit, B. C. (2014). Influence of stride frequency and length on running mechanics: a systematic review. Sports Health, 6(3), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738113508544