In cycling a higher cadence (rotations of pedal per minute) is more efficient than churning a higher gear at a low rate - but you have to find the balance between no resistance in the gears leading you to leg spin with no effect on the bike, and too hard.
I'm wondering if it's same or different in running?
Early on in the C25K I found it easier to have a shorter stride (and therefore more strides). With this I can do a 5k in between 30 and 32 minutes, which I'm pretty happy about.
But for the second week in a row, I've done the 5k+ speed podcasts. At both paces I've had to lengthen my stride to keep to the beat, which feels both unnatural and 'slower'.
However, it seems to be faster: Today my average pace was 5.59 min/km; a whole 41 seconds faster than the last 5k I did; and I'm pretty sure I could keep that up for another 10 minutes.
Another thing would confirm that a longer stride is more efficient; when I sprint I tend to shorten my stride and drive with my arms; and this works for short distances but I couldn't do that for any longer than, say 100 metres.
what's your experiences of stride length? Do you tend to have a longer or shorter one?
I think I'll experiment and force myself to keep a slower cadence on my next 5k and report on how it felt - and my time and pace!