Step Frequency

If you are toying with your gait to prevent or accommodate for an injury or perhaps in the pursuit of faster finishing times, it’s worth questioning the value of the metrics taken in isolation. Step frequency (SF) is one such measure that is easily captured, however its interpretation on its own may be misleading. One may modify SF however there are other consequences, e.g., changes in stride length (SL). SF and SL are often considered as a ratio that varies depending on speed. A blanket recommendation of running at a constant e.g. 180 steps per minute implies a broad assumption across differing speeds and amongst different individuals with varying characteristics, e.g., leg length, age and body mass.

Increasing SF as compared to a runner’s preferred step rate may very likely decrease rearfoot angles in the sagittal and frontal planes, tibial rotation, vertical ground reaction forces and anteroposterior ground reaction forces (Farina & Hahn, 2021), however research showing a direct reduction in running related injury is equivocal. This may be in large part due to the altered lower limb kinetics and kinematics, as well as the heterogeneity of the injuries being studied. In addition, one should also consider the energy cost as both running above or below a preferred rate may increase the energy cost (DeRuiter et al., 2019).

 In terms of performance, evidence of a relation to SF is mixed. Recent research is suggesting that contrary to previous observations, more experienced and faster runners are just as likely, if not more so, to run with lower SFs than higher SFs (van Oeveren et al., 2022).   

So, what to do with the data? Take it in stride!