In today's data-driven fitness world, metrics like VO₂ max and heart rate variability are the new benchmarks. While speed and distance are considered basic, one number has held a special, almost mythical status among runners for decades: cadence. This measure of steps per minute, popularised from the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, has been both a goal and a subject of intense debate in the running community.
The Origins of the 180 'Magic Number'
The fascination with cadence can be traced back to running coach Jack Daniels' observations at the 1984 Olympic Games. He noted that elite runners seemed to consistently exceed 180 steps per minute. This figure quickly transformed into a golden standard, a magic number for amateur and professional runners alike to chase. The theory was compelling: by aiming for a higher cadence, runners would naturally take shorter, quicker steps. This, in turn, was believed to reduce injury risk by lessening the impact load on hips and knees compared to longer, heavier strides.
For the casual fitness enthusiast who doesn't run, cadence might be an unfamiliar term. Treadmill workouts typically focus on time, speed, and incline, leaving this runner-centric metric in the background. However, with the proliferation of fitness wearables, data once reserved for elites is now accessible to everyone, making cadence a common feature on smartwatch screens.
The Great Cadence Debate: What Does Science Say?
Over the years, the universal application of a high cadence has been widely questioned. The relationship between cadence, fatigue, body mechanics, and performance is complex. A key factor is a runner's height; shorter individuals can typically maintain a higher cadence than taller runners with longer natural strides.
Critical questions arose from a pivotal study of a 100-kilometre road race in 2016, research often cited in cadence discussions. The race was divided into 10 laps of 10km each on a flat surface. Contrary to earlier studies suggesting that fatigue increases cadence, the 2016 findings presented a surprise. As summarized in an Outside magazine article titled 'It's Time to Rethink the Ideal Running Cadence,' fatigue didn't seem to be the primary driver. The study found that cadence changed primarily with speed: it increased when runners sped up and decreased when they slowed down. Remarkably, at a given speed, a runner's cadence remained largely consistent even after 90km compared to the first 5km.
The official study, 'Step frequency patterns of elite ultramarathon runners during a 100-km road race,' published by the National Institute for Biotechnology Information, concluded that an elite runner's cadence variability is linked to speed and fatigue, but not to other runner characteristics. It consistently stressed its focus on 'elite runners.'
So, Does Cadence Really Matter for the Average Runner?
The data from that 100K race revealed a telling spread. While the average cadence was 182 steps per minute, some finishers maintained below 160, while others exceeded 200 steps per minute. These runners finished within minutes of each other, effectively cancelling out cadence as a sole predictor of race performance or running health.
What, then, is the real value of cadence? For the casual runner, it serves as a useful and simple tool to understand pace and movement mechanics. It simplifies the complex act of running into a manageable number to monitor. However, for those looking to dive deeper, metrics like ground contact time and force distribution offer a richer, more detailed story about running form and efficiency.
Ultimately, cadence remains an accessible starting point in the runner's metric toolkit. It provides a focus for improving form, but as research shows, it is not a one-size-fits-all magic bullet. The quest for the perfect number may someday not matter at all, overshadowed by more personalised data. For now, it's a stepping stone in the journey from casual jogger to informed athlete.
