of course you're right he lands flat to mid foot.. read my last comment... he seems that he lands with the heel but's it's an optical illusion of the video... you have to consider that he 's running with a 8 mm drop shoes..

The problem with the 180 of cadence is that it is mostly the top runners of the world. Also, if you look at the top distance runners of the world, they're extremely skinny and light. So it requires less effort for them to achieve the 180. Whereas runners like myself who are 6'4 with long legs and 200+lbs, the cadence of 180 would require these awkward shuffle steps and take more energy to achieve.

​@@omenvii242 There is no problem with the 180 cadence unless it is improperly applied compared to the fitness level of the athlete and the conditions of the run. Whether you're skinny, light, heavy, tall, short or anything in between, the 180 cadence remains a fact that is needed for training. The REAL MYTH is that long legs and heavy runners can not achieve nor should they use a 180 spm. The reason a taller runner who is heavy does not run at 180 spm is because their fitness level is insufficient (mostly reflected by the weight to power ratio). The issue with long or short legs has more to do with STRIDE LENGTH and NOT cadence. Cadence is mostly an aerobic function while stride length is muscular strength/endurance (power over time) function. The physics of objects in motion proves this relationship. It is never a problem for the median best runner's cadence to be in 180 spm. However, it is a problem if a coach does not know how to apply this cadence in training relative to the physical (aerobic) and mechanical (body type/mobility) limitations of the runner. For example, if you have an amateur runner who is 200 lbls and 6'4" (193 cm) then the key limiting factor is fitness since they are a beginner PLUS it is crucial for a heavier runner to have perfect foot placement over the bodies center of gravity to avoid injury. A 180 spm cadence has shown in studies to reduce the chance of injury. As a result, it would be MORE CRUCIAL for a tall and heavy runner to have a higher cadence (note: I did not say 180 spm but infer a gradual increase in cadence toward 180 spm as a training goal). The higher cadence helps reduce over striding and promotes foot contact UNDER the center of gravity. However, at the same time, the fitness level of a beginner runner reduces the ability to sustain 180 spm for long (...the biggest reason why runners complain about 180 spm). So, the key is to shorten the runners stride and increase the cadence as an important training regiment. This facilitates better running posture with the added bonus of reduction in the chance of injury. A short stride and high cadence also means the runner will be VERY slow. BUT, that is good since the purpose is to learn form first then speed second. Your example of a tall and heavy runner is actually an example where it is MORE crucial for the runner to find higher cadence that approaches 180 spm IN TRAINING and NOT something that can't (or should) be done in a race. Whether or not they maintain 180 spm in a race is irrelevant since the goal is to improve form first and speed/endurance second while training. This is especially true since higher cadence improves aerobic capacity as a by-produce of its demands on the body. 180 cadence is an important "OPTIMAL" benchmark but not necessarily a preferred cadence for runners. A coach that knows this difference and can use cadence as a training tool is more valuable than one who simply thinks 180 spm is a myth. When, in fact, 180 cadence is simply a reflection of a demonstrable fact that needs to be applied in the correct context while training.

@@joemoya9743 But what about cadence vs pace as is pointed out in this video? The cadence varies widely with speed so there is no optimal nor preferred cadence?

​ @ChessRunner1974 Pace is determined by both cadence and stride length. Pace is a time derivative of acceleration and deacceleration. So, pace is always shifting depending upon the conditions (including elevation changes, which changes angle of foot contact, temperature, humidity, elevation, etc. - but, you get my point) and fitness level of the runner (aerobic capacity, VO2 level, metabolism rate, flexibility, muscular strength/endurance, etc.) These are the elements that determine PREFERRED pace. Preferred Pace is what is needed to complete the run. In contrast ... or... In addition < take your pick, Optimal Pace is what is a best based on standards or benchmarks reflected by observations. Optimal pace is useless if the runner can not maintain "optimal" pace to complete the run. So, the default is to choose preferred paces (note plural wording). These two are intertwined so that "optimal" is what a runner HOPES to achieve. While, preferred is what a runner desires or needs to complete the run base on their fitness level and/or conditions. A similar comparison of optimal to preferred can be made for a 180 spm cadence. Where, optimal is based observations showing a range around 180 spm as the preferred cadence among the best runners. So, in that case, preferred and optimal are similar for the best runners. But, for the average runner that is not true. "Optimal" is a training goal while "preferred" is what a runner does because of their fitness limitations. So, the next question is how does a runner improve their fitness level using cadence? For starters, there IS an optimal cadence based on observable proof. But, there is NO optimal stride length since that is dependent on physical limitations such as leg length (to name the most important). In other words, a particular cadence can be achieved by any one but may not be maintained for extended periods because of fitness level and no other reason. In contrast, a short person's stride has only so much "stretch" vs. a tall person (for example). This means you can standardize cadence in exchange for a change in stride length but you can't extend stride length beyond the physical limitations of the body. That makes cadence a standard goal benchmark ... but, the stride is different based on individuals. None the less, the optimal 180 spm cadence is the goal regardless of runners height/leg length. Now, how do you relate holding a standard cadence to the stride to improve your pace efficiently? Well, that introduces the concept of Power. Power is generated by the PUSH - horizontally and backward of the planting foot. The harder you push horizontally, the further you move forward. This is why foot placement is important. Higher cadence makes for better foot placement by...: 1) ... having the foot fall more under the bodies center of gravity (no over striding). 2) ...converting vertical movement into horizontal movement. NOTE: This physics is another subject matter that can be explained by math. But, in general, higher cadence is like a circle vs. slower cadence is like a block rotating. The circle is more efficient. What all this means is this: Keeping a high cadence as a constant benchmark (...where observations show it to be in the 180 spm range) ...and... where stride is defined by pushing/power within the limits of your leg length will result in finding the optimal pace that may or may not be the runner's preferred pace. Further more, optimal vs. preferred are terms that are defined by the fitness level of the runner. Plus, high cadence is the constant that helps reduce injury and improves power IF the athlete can train at higher cadences (fitness level is key). That makes 180 spm cadence a training tool that when applied effectively can help reduce injury potential and increase efficiency.

True. Feels natural to me to land on forefoot at least. Feel less impact.

This is so untrue at many levels. If runner is forefoot striker the drop even helps to maintain landing on forefoot. In this case heel bounce from the ground faster and Achilles tendon and calves aren't stressed that much like while running barefoot. Anyway most of people running barefoot with heel strike.

@@francesc5313 Sorry but nope. Bigger heels exist on running shoes because running shoe companies know the majority heel strike so they cushion it. If the heel is thicker, your heel therefore is closer to the ground when you stride so you are more likely to heel strike. You want to use your Achilles and calves so they become stronger with time. Not using them is the opposite of progress. No. It’s easier to forefoot strike running barefoot, unless your feet aren’t used to barefoot running and then your foot has less energy and will resort to heel strike when it’s too tired. I ran last night and this exact thing happened so I know it’s true.

@@francesc5313 I Agree with frankm2911 you can't use elastic properties of your lower legs landing on heel. Try jumping in place on heels vs forefoot you will se the difference.

Yes, that's what happens when you stick to facts.

I feel you! I'm the same height as you, my friend, and my stupid ass legs are long as hell.

I’m 180 cm and it’s already kinda awkward for me to do 180 bpm cadence in zone 2, can’t imagine how awkward it must be for you.

For me only positive thing from this myth is that I increased my cadence wondering how to go from 160 to 180. Now my average cadence is about 170-175 and I feel it's optimal for me. I think that the most useful advice to increase cadence was "swing arms faster and legs will follow".

For me also 194 cm, cadence goes up when I don’t think about cadence but concentrate on lifting my heels and pulling knee through. When I just increase cadence without changing stride pattern I just run faster.

@@francesc5313 a useful tip for this is to pull in your hands in more by bending your elbows and same goes for knees, this will reduce the length of the pendulum and increase the your natural frequency.

that's because he is running at light speed

Now, tried it today. Used a metronome, brought the arms in... Cadence according to polar went up to 90 (I think the watch just counts every second step, because I was spot on aligning the steps with the meteonome) - I was slightly faster than my usual harder runs... But at a cost of averaged 10 bpm elevated heart rate. Fatigue is way higher, foot sole is aching again (haven't had that in a while), calves are disproportionately loaded. Could it be that that just isn't my cadence...? I'm 186cm, long limbs - short torso and running in barefoot shoes on the ball of the foot, hence further increasing my leg length...