It does make sense, but I've also read elite runners talk about cutting back on "junk miles" (example).
jboy
Sweat-wicking shirts! Compression socks! Non-bouncing shades! UV-proof hats! Neck buffs! Trail shoes! Gaiters! Racing shoes, carbon-plated! Recovery flipflops! Base layers! Jackets, rain and windproof! Reflective gear! A smartwatch! Training plans! Runners' memoirs! Club membership! Race signup fees! Gels! Electrolyte mix! Protein bars!
And have you tried spirulina, it does wonders for recovery (so they say)
I did two recovery runs since my ultra, and they felt good. Think I'll return to a normal volume again this week.
Sunday was marathon day and I spent almost three hours cheering on runners in the full and half races passing my house. That was fun. I hope that guy running right in front of the street sweepers still made it to the finish...
I'm mostly at 160, a bit higher if I go faster, and lower if slower. I think aside from speed, leg length is a decisive variable. I am tall and have long legs, so I don't expect I'll ever average above 170.
A good read on this subject:
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/stop-overthinking-your-running-cadence/
As for the magical 180, my own take is that the idea has persisted because it’s a good aspirational goal for many runners. Lots of runners overstride, crashing down on their heels and putting excessive force on their joints. Telling them to increase their cadence by, say, 5 percent results in shorter, smoother strides, and reduces loads on the knee and hip. But there’s a very big difference between saying “Some runners might benefit from increasing their cadence” and “All runners, regardless of what speed they’re running at, should take at least 180 steps per minute.”
Haha you mean where I do most my running 😶