Why I Don’t Do Much Cadence Training With Runners
When a runner wants to increase their cadence, I always ask what their end goal is. It usually boils down to 2 main goals:
Decreasing the risk of injury
Becoming a more efficient runner
Both of these are valid goals, but I don’t think cadence retraining is the most effective method to achieve either one. I’ll break down each goal below.
No data that cadence training reduces injury risk
There’s no evidence to show that increasing cadence reduces the risk of injury. Vertical loading rate is often cited as the main biomechanical variable that can be changed with cadence training.
Vertical loading rate is the amount of force your body experiences from the ground as it lands on each stride - specifically in the vertical direction.
Coaches and PTs will often argue that increasing cadence reduces vertical loading rate. But the data on this topic is conflicting. This review highlights the data and how it’s contradictory. Some experiments show that changing cadence alters the vertical loading rate, while others do not.
If you read any of the studies that examine cadence and biomechanics, you’ll see many statements like “shifting to a running cadence higher than one’s preferred MAY be helpful in reducing the risk of lower limb running injuries” (1, 2).
The reason these papers say that increasing cadence MAY decrease injury risk is that we don’t have any data that actually compares runners with a higher cadence vs. a lower cadence to look at differences in injury rates - we only can see changes in biomechanics.
Cadence training is an effective treatment after a runner already has pain
You may have also seen that cadence training is helpful for the treatment of knee pain, and this is true. When using a gait retraining program to increase cadence 7.5% and 10%, the runners can achieve a significant reduction in their knee pain that is retained 4 months after treatment began.
It might seem easy to jump to the conclusion that because cadence is a good treatment for pain, then it must be a good preventative tool as well. However, we see many interventions in physical therapy that are effective in treating injuries but don’t have the same effectiveness in preventing injuries on a population level. So we can’t say that increasing cadence reduces injury risk since there’s no data to support that claim.
Because of this, when a client comes to me and says they want to decrease the risk of injury, cadence is not on my list of variables to manipulate.
Instead, we take a detailed look at their training. Specifically looking at how their training week is structured, the frequency and intensity of hard sessions, terrain they run on, consistency, and recovery. All of these factors are far more important to running injuries than cadence.
Runners find their most efficient cadence naturally
The other reason that runners often want to increase their cadence is to become more efficient, which is also a fair goal.
I’ve talked extensively about cadence here, where I highlight how runners naturally seem to find their most efficient cadence on their own. When researchers measure runners at their preferred cadence, and below and above their cadence, we see that they use more oxygen when running at the altered cadence vs. their preferred cadence.
So this begs the question: If runners are less efficient when changing their cadence in the moment, can they be trained to run at a new cadence efficiently?
Can running cadence be trained to improve running economy?
The answer is yes, if certain conditions are met.
Self-guided cadence programs that utilize metronomes and playlists with beats that match a pre-set cadence don’t seem to have a significant effect on cadence or running efficiency. This also matches what I find clinically. If I recommend a metronome app or a playlist with a certain beats/min to a runner, they usually have a really hard time replicating the results when you take the metronome or music away.
For this reason, I don’t recommend self-guided gait retraining anymore.
Training cadence with real-time feedback
There is one study to date that shows an improvement in cadence and running economy.
Researchers recruited well-trained female runners to participate in a gait retraining program. They had the runners come into the research lab every day for 10 days straight to complete a 15-minute cadence training session.
The session included treadmill running with a device on their shoe to measure cadence. Runners were provided real-time feedback on their cadence and were instructed to increase or decrease their step rate if they were not hitting the target of 180 steps per minute.
The runners who participated in this program increased their cadence by 5-8% and improved their running economy by 3-8%.
These results indicate that runners can increase their cadence and running economy with a structured cadence training program.
Is Cadence retraining worth it?
The cadence retraining programs that show an effect all have one thing in common: in-person training with real-time feedback. You can find a summary of all the research on gait retraining here.
Opportunity cost
The issue with in-person gait retraining with real-time feedback is that it takes time away from things that I believe are more important. It also requires some equipment or technology to provide instant feedback.
I generally have a limited amount of time with a client each week. If we’re going to meet in-person for training, I think it’s a much better use of our time to go through strengthening, plyometrics, and speed/agility rather than gait retraining. These programs have benefits beyond just running economy, and they have known positive effects on race times.
Now, once the client gets the hang of those programs, I may go through a cadence retraining program with them if they have an abnormally low cadence. We would hop on a treadmill, use their watch or a foot pod and provide real-time feedback on a screen to incease their cadence.
Over time we could track their cadence and track things like heart rate at various speeds to see the effect. The issue is that if a runner increases their cadence and decreases their heart rate with repeat testing, the improvement could also be attributed to other factors like the runner improving their overall fitness. This is why I lean back on randomized control trials for data on the topic.
Like I said earlier, I’m not against cadence training. I just think there are more important things to work on first.
My hierarchy of improving running economy:
Heavy strength training and plyometrics
Hill sprints and speed drills
Cadence retraining
Summary:
Increasing cadence has no known effect on injury risk
Cadence can be an effective treatment after someone already has pain
Runners find their own most efficient cadence naturally
Self-guided cadence retraining programs aren’t very effective
In-person gait retraining with real-time feedback can improve cadence and running economy
I think there are better ways to improve running economy like:
Strength training
Plyometric training
Hill sprints and speed drills
If a client has mastered strength, plyometrics, and the hills/speed drills. Then I’ll consider gait retraining if they have an abnormally low cadence
