European Journal of Sport Science

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Using beat frequency in music to adjust running

cadence in recreational runners: A randomized
multiple baseline design

Mark te Brake, Niki Stolwijk, Bart Staal & Bas Van Hooren

To cite this article: Mark te Brake, Niki Stolwijk, Bart Staal & Bas Van Hooren (2023)
Using beat frequency in music to adjust running cadence in recreational runners: A
randomized multiple baseline design, European Journal of Sport Science, 23:3, 345-354, DOI:
10.1080/17461391.2022.2042398

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2022.2042398

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 29 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4299

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejs20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
2023, VOL. 23, NO. 3, 345–354
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2022.2042398

Using beat frequency in music to adjust running cadence in recreational runners:

A randomized multiple baseline design
Mark te Brakea, Niki Stolwijk b
, Bart Staal b,c
and Bas Van Hooren d

a
Fysio Oude IJsselstreek, Terborg, The Netherlands; bResearch Group Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Nijmegen, HAN University of Applied
Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; cRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen,
The Netherlands; dDepartment of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism,
Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Running with music has been shown to acutely change cadence. However, it is unclear if the Endurance; injury &
increased cadence remains long-term when running without music in an in-field situation. The prevention; performance;
aim of this 12-week study was to investigate the effect of a 4-week music running program on technology; training
cadence, speed and heartrate during and after the music running program. Seven recreational
runners with a cadence of <170 steps per minute were randomly assigned to a baseline and
post-intervention period of different durations. During the intervention phase, the participants
ran with a musical beat that was 7.5–10% higher than their mean cadence at the start of the
study. Cadence, heartrate and running speed were measured twice a week during a 5-kilometer
run with a watch, and were analyzed using randomization tests and visual data inspection. Two
participants dropped-out due to shortage of time (n = 1) and an acute calf injury (n = 1).
Cadence significantly increased during the intervention period (+8.5%), and remained elevated
during the post-intervention period (+7.9% (p = .001)) in comparison with the baseline period.
Heartrate and running speed did not significantly change during any period. This study among
five participants shows that four weeks of running with a musical beat that is 7.5–10% higher
than the preferred cadence may be an effective and feasible intervention to increase running
cadence. Importantly, the increased cadence occurred without simultaneous increases in
running speed and heartrate, hereby potentially reducing mechanical loading without
increasing metabolic load.

Highlights
. Running with a musical rhythm that is higher than the preferred cadence leads to an increased
running cadence, without increasing heartrate and running speed.
. This cadence remains elevated for at least three to five weeks after the music intervention
period.
. All individuals showed a practically relevant increase in cadence during and after the
intervention.

1. Introduction
Running is a popular sport in Western countries with
more than 40 million runners in the United States and
over 50 million in Europe. Running injuries are very
common with 7.7 injuries per 1000 hours in recreational
runners and 17.8 injuries per 1000 hours in novice
runners (Videbæk, Bueno, Nielsen, & Rasmussen, 2015).
Kinetic risk factors for running-injuries include higher
vertical ground reaction forces and peak braking (pos-
terior) forces (Chan et al., 2018; Napier, MacLean,
Maurer, Taunton, & Hunt, 2018a, 2018b). For example,
a prospective study of 74 female runners showed an
eight times higher risk of injury in runners with higher
peak braking force compared to runners with lower
peak braking force (Napier et al., 2018a). Kinematic risk
factors for running-injuries include a larger hip adduc-
tion, contralateral pelvic drop and hip internal rotation
(Neal, Barton, Gallie, O’Halloran, & Morrissey, 2016;
Willy, Manal, Witvrouw, & Davis, 2012).
An increase in running cadence has been shown to
have positive effects on both kinetic and kinematic
injury risk factors. For example, according to Napier
et al (Napier, MacLean, Maurer, Taunton, & Hunt,
2018b), a 7% increase in cadence results in a 15%

CONTACT Bas Van Hooren basvanhooren@hotmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built
upon in any way.
346 M. T. BRAKE ET AL.
decrease in peak braking force (Napier et al., 2018b). In
addition, an increase in cadence is related to a decrease
in the vertical ground reaction force (Allen, Heisler,
Mooney, & Kring, 2016; Schubert, Kempf, & Heiderscheit,
2014) and in the average and instantaneous vertical
loading rates (Willy, Buchenic, et al., 2016). Kinematic
changes associated with an increase in cadence include
decreased contralateral pelvic drop, hip adduction, and
peak knee flexion during stance phase (Bramah, Preece,
Gill, & Herrington, 2019). The changes in kinematics and
kinetics due to an increase in cadence are associated
with a decrease in internal loads such as a decreased
peak load on the patellofemoral joint (Lenhart et al.,
2015; Lenhart, Thelen, Wille, Chumanov, & Heiderscheit,
2014), tibiofemoral joint (Willy, Meardon, et al., 2016),
heel, metatarsal (Wellenkotter, Kernozek, Meardon, &
Suchomel, 2014), and Achilles tendon (Lyght, Nockerts,
Kernozek, & Ragan, 2016). Furthermore, it has been
shown that a 10% reduction in preferred stride length
(and therefore increased cadence) reduces tibial
damage and therefore the likelihood of stress fractures
(Edwards, Taylor, Rudolphi, Gillette, & Derrick, 2009).
Finally, a randomized controlled trail by Chan et al.
(2018) showed that eight lab-based gait retraining ses-
sions focused on “running softer”, led to a decrease in
the vertical ground reaction force and a 62% reduction
in injury risk in novice runners.
Numerous researchers have investigated methods to
increase running cadence. However, most studies are
lab-based and focus on providing visual or auditive
feedback by means of expensive equipment (Chan
et al., 2018; Dos Santos, Nakagawa, Nakashima,
Maciel, & Serrao, 2016; Napier et al., 2018a; Neal,
Barton, Birn-Jeffrey, Daley, & Morrissey, 2018). Addition-
ally, lab-based studies often require participants to visit
the lab multiple times, which is a considerable effort.
Running with music is a more feasible and low-cost
alternative to increase cadence in the natural training
environment (Bood, Nijssen, Van Der Kamp, & Roerdink,
2013; Buhmann, Moens, Van Dyck, Dotov, & Leman,
2018; Mendonça, Oliveira, Fontes, & Santos, 2014; Van
Dyck et al., 2015). It has been shown that running
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion Exclusion
Age 18–60 Baseline cadence >170 steps per minute
Recreational runner: at least 2 An injury with a restriction of running
times a week >5k speed, distance, duration or frequency for
at least 1 week, in the last 6 months.
Baseline cadence < 170 steps Hearing impairment
per minute
Chronic physical abnormalities, causing
running pattern to be changed or
training to be adjusted.
with music that has a rhythm lower than the preferred
running cadence leads to reductions in cadence in
overground conditions, while musical rhythms higher
than the preferred cadence result in an increased
cadence (Van Dyck et al., 2015). More specifically, indi-
viduals spontaneously (i.e. without specific instruc-
tions) adjust their cadence up to 2% when the
rhythm of the music does not deviate more than 3%
from the preferred cadence (Van Dyck et al., 2015).
When specifically instructed, an adjustment up to
approximately 10% of the preferred cadence seems
achievable, albeit investigated in walking conditions
(Mendonça et al., 2014). Although it has been shown
that a metronome can also be used to increase
cadence (Bood et al., 2013; Bramah et al., 2019),
additional benefits of music include a decreased per-
ceived exertion and an increased motivation compared
to a metronome (Bood et al., 2013). It has also been
shown that runners maintain a more consistent
cadence when running with music, and sustain a vigor-
ous running program for a longer duration (Bood et al.,
2013). In addition to these benefits, music has positive
effects on running speed and blood lactate during a
maximal running test (Jebabli et al., 2020). If the
music has a prominent and consistent rhythm that
matches the runner’s cadence, listening to music
while running therefore appears to be an effective
way to increase cadence.
Studies using different feedback methods (i.e. visual
via a watch, or auditive via metronome) show significant
increases in cadence after one to three months when
measured without the presence of feedback (Bramah
et al., 2019; Willy, Buchenic, et al., 2016). For example,
a study by Willy, Buchenic, et al. (2016) showed that
eight running retraining sessions with direct feedback
(average steps per minute) on the display of a watch
led to an increase in cadence and this increased
cadence remained for at least 30 days, even in the
absence of feedback. Although cadence can be effec-
tively changed with the use of music (Bood et al.,
2013; Buhmann et al., 2018; Mendonça et al., 2014; Van
Dyck et al., 2015), it is unknown whether the change in
cadence is preserved when running without music.
Since running with music employs similar feedback
methods as previous studies with metronomes, the
effect is also expected to persist after the music interven-
tion. The aim of this study was therefore to establish the
feasibility and investigate the long-term effect of a 4-
week running-with-music program on running
cadence. We hypothesized that running with music
was effective at increasing cadence and that this
increased cadence persisted when running without
music.

2. Methods
2.1 Participants
Recreational runners between 18 and 60 years of age
were recruited from a local athletics community and
via social media posts in October 2019. Participants
had to meet the in- and exclusion criteria as described
in Table 1. The cadence inclusion criterion was assessed
during a five kilometer overground run where the
average cadence was calculated with the Garmin Fore-
runner 645 music. All participants signed informed
consent prior to data collection. The study was
approved by the Ethics Advisory Committee of the
HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen the
Netherlands (168.01 20).
2.2 Design
A randomized, concurrent, multiple-baseline design
(MBD) was applied. This is a statistically powerful study
design for interventions because the potential effect
and feasibility of an intervention can be detected with
a low number of participants as each participant acts
as their own control (Backman, Harris, Chisholm, &
Monette, 1997).
The total duration of the study was 12 weeks for all
participants, in which they ran twice a week. For each
participant, the study consisted of a baseline phase
( b), an intervention phase ( ) (4 weeks) and a post-
intervention phase ( ). Participants were randomly
assigned to seven different baseline and post-interven-
tion periods of 2 and 6 weeks, 2.5 and 5.5 weeks, 3
and 5 weeks, … , or 5 and 3 weeks respectively (Figure
1). Randomization was done using the Wampold-
Worsham method (Ferron & Sentovich, 2002). Partici-
pants had at least four baseline sessions to ensure a
reliable baseline. As the duration of the intervention
phase was similar for all participants, participants with
a longer baseline phase had a shorter post-intervention
phase (Figure 1). By applying multiple baselines of
different lengths (Figure 1), the observed effects of the
treatment can be distinguished from effects due to
coincidence and training, thus increasing the internal
validity of the study.
2.3 Power
Although the power of randomization tests with single
participant baseline phase and intervention phase
designs is rather small, it has been shown that the com-
bination of several of these baseline and intervention
experiments into a MBD increases the power
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE 347
considerably (Onghena & Edgington, 2015). Ferron and
Sentovich (Ferron & Sentovich, 2002) showed that with
four participants and 20 measurement occasions, a
large treatment effect can be detected with a power of
0.80. For the present study a multiple baseline power
analysis was performed using an online tool (https://
architecta.shinyapps.io/SingleCaseDesignsv02/). Pre-
vious studies investigating the effect of a gait retraining
program (metronome/watch) on cadence found effect
sizes (Cohen’s d) between 1.30 and 2.10 (Baumgartner,
Gusmer, Hollman, & Finnoff, 2019; Bramah et al., 2019).
With minimal four baseline measurements, six post-
intervention measurements, a power of 0.8, and an
alpha level of <.05, effect sizes of 1.30–2.10, result in esti-
mated sample sizes of four to seven participants.
2.4 Protocol
At the start of the study, all participants received a Garmin
Forerunner 645 music and HRM-DUAL heartrate strap.
Cadence, speed, heartrate, distance and altitude profile
were measured with this equipment. Heartrate and
speed were measured to investigate if internal and exter-
nal load changed during and after the intervention
period. Distance and altitude were measured to exclude
too long or too short routes (minimal five and maximal
ten kilometers) and routes with too much elevation differ-
ence (highest/lowest point > twenty meter). Other models
of Garmin watches have been shown to provide valid and
reliable cadence and distance data, with absolute percen-
tage errors of -2.7–0.3%, and -3.3–26%, respectively
(Adams, Pozzi, Carroll, Rombach, & Zeni Jr, 2016; Wahl,
Düking, Droszez, Wahl, & Mester, 2017).
During each phase, participants ran a route of at least
five to maximum ten kilometers twice a week. Partici-
pants were advised to choose a route with as few
obstacles as possible (hills, traffic lights, crossings) and
to run this route for the duration of the study. The first
five minutes of each training session were classified as
warm-up and were not included in the analysis. During
the baseline phase, participants ran their route at their
own pace without instructions. At the end of the base-
line phase, the participant’s average cadence was calcu-
lated from all workouts in the baseline phase, excluding
the five-minute warm-up of each workout. The average
cadence was used to determine the rhythm per
minute for the music in the intervention phase. Fitness
workout music of thirty to sixty minutes with a consist-
ent and prominent rhythm per minute were chosen by
the researcher (Appendix A). The music genre was not
personalized. For each participant, music was chosen
that was 7.5–10% higher than the average cadence
during the baseline phase (Napier et al., 2018a; Willy,
348 M. T. BRAKE ET AL.
Figure 1. Randomization for each participant with the different length of baseline (2–5weeks) and post-intervention (3–6 weeks)
phases.
Buchenic, et al., 2016). Music was played via the watch’s
Bluetooth on earpods or a headphone. Before the start
of the music intervention phase, participants were
given the following advice: “try to adjust your cadence
to the rhythm of the music and keep the running
speed roughly equal to the speed of your training ses-
sions without music”. To check if the participants under-
stood this advice, participants ran for a few minutes
without music and then for a few minutes with music
in overground conditions in the presence of a
researcher. Participants received personal feedback to
adjust their rhythm appropriately to the music. During
the post-intervention phase, participants ran the same
route without music two times per week. At the start
of this phase, participants were instructed to maintain
the learned cadence during the intervention phase. A
total of 24 training sessions (16 during the baseline
phase and post-intervention phase, 8 during the music
intervention phase) were performed over the total
study period of 12 weeks (Figure 1).
2.5 Data processing
Average cadence (steps per minute), average speed
(kilometers per hour), average heart rate (beats per
minute), distance (kilometers) and altitude profile
(meters) were downloaded via the Garmin Connect soft-
ware for further processing in Microsoft Excel.
2.6 Statistical analysis
Data from the entire workout (excluding the 5-min
warm-up) was included in the analysis to investigate
whether cadence changed due to running with music.
A priori, we choose to exclude training sessions where
the elevation difference (highest lowest point) was
bigger than 20 meters from the analysis to minimize
the effect of running uphill and/or downhill on
cadence. However, no training sessions were excluded
for this reason.
For the visual data inspection, a 2-SD band was calcu-
lated for average cadence from the baseline data and
visualized in the music intervention phase and post-
intervention phase (Figure 2). If two or more successive
data points (average cadence per session) in the music
intervention phase or post-intervention phase fell
outside the bandwidth of 2 SDs, the result was con-
sidered significant (Baumgartner et al., 2019). This analy-
sis was performed to check if there was a significant
difference for each individual participant in addition to
the whole group analysis. The analysis of the data was
done in Excel version 15.14.0 for Mac OS.
Randomization tests for multiple baseline single case
design in R (version 3.6.1 for Mac OS with SCRT package)
were used to analyze if there was a statistically signifi-
cant difference (baseline phase versus post-intervention
phase) at the total group (5 participants) level (Bulte &
Onghena, 2009). The H0 hypothesis of no effect of the
music intervention phase on cadence during the post-
intervention phase compared to the baseline phase
was tested.
Effects on mean speed and mean heart rate in the
various phases were also analyzed. A p-value of <.05
was considered statistically significant and an increase
in cadence of more than 7%, which causes a decrease
in vertical ground reaction forces and peak braking
forces and therefore possibly the injury risk, was con-
sidered as practically relevant (Napier et al., 2018a;
Willy, Buchenic, et al., 2016).
To estimate an effect size and hence sample size for a
randomized between-subject design based on our
findings, we used cadence during the post-intervention
phase and baseline phase in a statistical model (model
MB2) that assumes (a) varying intercepts, (b) variable
intervention effects and (c) no trends (Pustejovsky,
Hedges, & Shadish, 2014).
3 Results
3.1 Study characteristics
A total of 12 people were screened to participate in the
study. Seven participants (three men, four women) with
a mean ± SD age of 42.4 ± 7.0 years met the in- and
exclusion criteria for participation. Mean ± SD running

Figure 2. Graphical representation of cadence ( ) per participant with −2-SD.( ), +2-SD ( ) and distinction ( ) between baseline
( b) (4–10 training sessions), intervention phase ( ) (8 training sessions) and post-intervention phase ( ) (6–12 training sessions).
experience and weekly distance were 8.4 ± 6.9 years
and 14.3 ± 7.6 kilometer, respectively. During the base-
line measurement, the mean cadence was 163 ± 4.3
steps per minute. Five participants completed the
twelve-week training program. Reasons for loss to
follow-up included shortage of time (n = 1) after four
sessions in the baseline phase and acute calf injury (n
= 1) during training session ten (six baseline phase and
four intervention phase). These two participants were
excluded from analyses.
3.2 Cadence
A significant increase in cadence was measured for the
entire group (Table 2) and for each individual participant
(Figure 2) during the music intervention phase and post-
intervention phase combined when compared to the
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE 349
baseline phase (p = .003). During the post-intervention
phase, there was a significant increase in cadence for
each individual participant (Figure 2) and for the entire
group (Table 2) compared to the baseline phase (p
= .001). On average, cadence increased by 8.5% (+ 14
steps per minute) during the music intervention phase
compared to the baseline phase and cadence remained
increased by 7.9% (+ 13 steps per minute) during the
post-intervention phase compared to the baseline
phase. Visual inspection of Figure 2 indicates that (a)
the stride frequency during the baseline phase differs
between individuals, (b) the mean treatment effect
differs between individuals, and (c) there is no trend
present in both the baseline and intervention phase.
The design-comparable between-subject effect size for
post-intervention phase versus baseline phase, adjusted
for small sample bias is 3.24 (95% CI 1.8–4.7).
350 M. T. BRAKE ET AL.
Table 2. Group differences between baseline phase, intervention phase and post-intervention phase (mean ± SD).
Outcome b (
Cadence (steps per minute) 165 ± 3.8 179 ± 3.9
Heartrate (beats per minute) 152 ± 8.9 155 ± 9.6
Speed (meter per second) 2.96 ± 0.28 3.02 ± 0.34
b = baseline phase, = intervention phase, = post-intervention phase, *= significant difference in comparison with the baseline (p= <.05)
3.3 Heartrate
There was no significant increase in the mean heartrate
during the music intervention phase and post-interven-
tion phase combined (p = .37) or separately during the
post-intervention phase (p = .42) compared to the base-
line phase for the entire group (Table 2).
3.4 Speed
There was no significant increase in the average speed
during the music intervention phase and the post-inter-
vention phase combined (p = .64). Although there was a
significant reduction in speed during the post-interven-
tion phase (p = .042) compared to the baseline phase for
the entire group (Table 2), the average decrease was four
seconds per kilometer, which we did not consider to be
practically relevant.
4 Discussion
The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility
and investigate the effect of a 4-week music running
program on cadence during, and 3–5 weeks after the
intervention period. This study shows that eight
running workouts with a musical rhythm that is 7.5–
10% higher than the natural cadence leads to increases
in cadence in all five participants by an average of 8.5%.
Three to five weeks after the intervention period this
cadence remained increased by 7.9% (effect size d =
3.24).
An (acute) 8.5% increase in cadence while running
with music was achieved by instructing the participants
to synchronize their cadence with the beat of the music.
This effect is consistent with the results from lab-based
studies that aimed to increase running cadence (Chan
et al., 2018; Dos Santos et al., 2016; Napier et al.,
2018b; Neal et al., 2018). However, running with a
watch in overground conditions is a more practical
and low-cost intervention in comparison with lab-
based gait re-training interventions. The instruction to
synchronize cadence with the music seems necessary
(Mendonça et al., 2014), as recent research has shown
that recreational runners are better able to match the
gait pattern to the music compared to a comparable
P value P value Increase Increase
+ )- b - b - b (%) - b (%)
178 ± 3.9 .003* .001* 8.5 7.9
151 ± 8.1 .37 .42 2.0 - .8
2.94 ± 0.32 .64 .042* −2.0 0.84
running task without instruction (Van Dyck, Buhmann,
& Lorenzoni, 2020). Previous research in walking has
also shown cadence can acutely increase up to approxi-
mately 10% of the preferred cadence after an instruction
to synchronize cadence with music whilst walking on a
treadmill (Mendonça et al., 2014).
In addition to these acute effects, the effect of the
music intervention on cadence persisted in the 3–5
week period after the intervention. Our results therefore
suggest that field-based interventions that apply
running with music are feasible and may be equally
effective as lab-based interventions to increase
running cadence. All participants did however show a
small decrease in cadence after they stopped running
with music, which was most pronounced in the first
few training sessions. Nevertheless, two weeks after
the last music training session, all participants showed
either an increase towards post-intervention levels, or
stable cadence. Although no other studies have investi-
gated the long-term effect of running with music on
cadence in overground conditions, the results are in
line with studies that show increases in cadence using
real-time feedback from a watch or a metronome
persist for at least four to eight weeks after the interven-
tion (Bramah et al., 2019; Willy, Buchenic, et al., 2016). A
study by Bramah et al. (Bramah et al., 2019) for example
showed a mean increase of 9.1% in cadence after a 4-
week running program with a metronome in over-
ground conditions. The higher increase in cadence com-
pared to our study (9.1% vs. 7.9%) might be due to the
difference in beat frequency of the metronome, which
was 10% higher than the preferred cadence instead of
the 7.5–10% used in our study. While our results are
derived from a small sample, the consistency and direc-
tion of the improvements in the cadence parameter
during and after the music intervention are promising
and support the need for further research. Specifically,
the individual responses of the participants were very
consistent as all participants increased the cadence
immediately after the start of the music intervention
(Figure 2). After the intervention period, there was a
small decrease in cadence for most participants, but a
practically relevant increase remained in all participants
(Figure 2). This increased cadence may have a beneficial
effect on risk factors of injuries and proxies of running

performance. Previous studies for example showed a
decrease in peak braking forces and vertical ground
reaction forces with an increase in cadence (Hei-
derscheit, Chumanov, Michalski, Wille, & Ryan, 2011;
Napier et al., 2018a; Willy, Buchenic, et al., 2016). Since
a high peak braking force is associated with a five-fold
higher risk of an injury, a gait retraining program that
can modify cadence might therefore reduce the peak
braking force and hereby reduce the risk of injury
(Napier et al., 2018a, 2018b). Furthermore, an increased
cadence has been associated with improvements in
running economy (Quinn, Dempsey, LaRoche, Macken-
zie, & Cook, 2019) and such effects may in turn
improve the motivation of individuals to keep running
(Van Hooren, Goudsmit, Restrepo, & Vos, 2020).
An important secondary finding of our study is that
running speed and heartrate during and after the inter-
vention remained stable compared to the baseline
period. This finding is consistent with results from previous
research where an increased cadence did not increase the
metabolic load (oxygen consumption and heartrate)
(Quinn et al., 2019). Although the increased cadence fol-
lowing the musical intervention is associated with a
reduced mechanical load (Napier et al., 2018b; Willy,
Buchenic, et al., 2016), our findings therefore suggest
that this is not at the expense of a higher metabolic
load. We also found that all participants enjoyed running
with music (average 8 on a scale of 1/10), and running
with the increased cadence at the end of the post-inter-
vention phase was experienced as easier and more plea-
sant compared to running during the baseline phase. A
final, secondary finding is that one participant dropped
out as a result of a running-related calf injury. This is in
line with a study from Chan et al (Chan et al., 2018)
where there were significantly more calf injuries in the
gait-retraining intervention group compared to the
control group. Increasing cadence results in an increased
load on the calf muscles (Ahn, Brayton, Bhatia, & Martin,
2014; Nunns, House, Fallowfield, Allsopp, & Dixon, 2013)
but lowers the load on almost all others structures of the
lower extremity, which potentially can result in a
reduced overall injury risk (Edwards et al., 2009; Hei-
derscheit et al., 2011; Lenhart et al., 2014; Lenhart et al.,
2015; Lyght et al., 2016; Napier et al., 2018a, 2018b; Wellen-
kotter et al., 2014; Willy, Buchenic, et al., 2016). Neverthe-
less, follow-up studies should take into account drop-out
of participants due to the possible higher load and
damage on the calf muscles/Achilles tendon.
4.4 Limitations and future directions
Several strengths and limitations, as well as directions for
future research can be identified in this MBD study. First,
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE 351
a strength of this study is that all measurements were
conducted in the participants, natural training environ-
ment. This has higher ecological validity than assess-
ments conducted in a controlled lab environment, but
also introduced more variability, for example due to
differences in running speed and environmental
factors. However, to reduce the variability in the partici-
pants’ natural training environment, they received an
instruction once before each phase and were instructed
to avoid hilly courses and maintain an approximately
similar running speed. It follows from this that the
findings of this study are limited to situations where a
wearable device or coach instructs individuals to syn-
chronize their cadence with music and where partici-
pants run at only one comfortable speed on a
relatively level surface. Future research is therefore
required to explore the effects in a setting with less
restrictions on running speed and course. A second
strength is that the intervention lasted only eight train-
ing sessions, which makes it easier applicable compared
to longer duration interventions, and is also consistent
with previous research with other feedback mechanisms
aimed at increasing cadence (Bramah et al., 2019; Willy,
Buchenic, et al., 2016).
A limitation of this study is that there may be a risk of
selection bias as all participants had a low cadence (<170
steps per minute). Self-enrollment and the inclusion cri-
teria of a low cadence for participation in the study may
have given the participants extra motivation to change
their gait and this may in turn have increased the effect
of the intervention. Nevertheless, these findings do
suggest that individuals may benefit from this type of
feedback if they have a low cadence and are motivated
to increase their cadence. Further, the average speed of
the participants in this study (2.9 m/s /∼10.5 km/h), is in
line with the running speed typically reported in rec-
reational runners. Altough we do not see any reasons
why the musical intervention should not have similar
effects in faster runners with a low cadence, more
research is required to substantiate this notion.
A randomized concurrent MBD was used to evaluate
the potential effectiveness of the intervention. The MBD
is successful in demonstrating immediate effects of the
intervention and an accepted research method used in
medical, psychological and biological research
(Neuman, 2011). A limitation of this design is the lack
of a control group. However, previous research
showed no significant changes in cadence in control
groups that continue their normal training practice (six
weeks) (Adams et al., 2016; Willy, Buchenic, et al.,
2016). Additionally, the effects of the intervention
occur immediately after the start of the intervention in
the current study. In combination with the baseline
352 M. T. BRAKE ET AL.
measurements, it is therefore likely that cadence
increased due to the music intervention rather than con-
tinued training. Nevertheless, although the study popu-
lation (five participants) is large enough to generate
reliable results for the effectiveness of the intervention
with the MBD (Wahl et al., 2017), the number of partici-
pants does not accurately reflect the entire population
of recreational runners. Studies with a larger number
of participants are therefore recommended for further
research. For future research we would also recommend
a randomized controlled trial design. We therefore used
our findings to perform a sample size calculation for a
randomized between-subject design using an estimated
design-comparable effect size as proposed by Puste-
jovsky, Hedges, and Shadish (Pustejovsky et al., 2014).
We estimated the effect size using a model (model
MB2) that assumes (a) varying intercepts, (b) variable
intervention effects and (c) no trends (Pustejovsky
et al., 2014). The resulting between-subject effect size
adjusted for small sample bias is 3.24 (95% CI 1.8–4.7).
The lower bound of the confidence interval (SMD = 1.8)
can be used for a conservative estimate of the required
number of participants. Given an effect size of 1.8, power
of 0.9 and a significance level of 0.05, 8 participants in
each group are needed in a randomized controlled
trial. This means that replication studies can be done
in a small randomized controlled trial.
A final limitation is that the intervention was
stopped abruptly, while the optimal way to develop a
new motor skill is gradually reduce the feedback fre-
quency. In this way, an individual learns to rely on
his/her own intrinsic feedback mechanisms in order
to perform the movement correctly (Winstein 1991).
Future research should therefore gradually reduce the
feedback frequency. Nevertheless, the higher cadence
was effectively maintained after the intervention
period despite this abrupt stop. Yet, it is important to
note that participants were also instructed to maintain
the increased cadence at the start of the post-interven-
tion phase and further research is required to investi-
gate if cadence also remains increased without such
an instruction.
5 Conclusion
This study among five participants shows that running
with music is a feasible method to apply in-field, with
only eight running workouts with music providing an
effective, practical and low-cost intervention for promot-
ing long-term increases in running cadence, without
concomitant increases in heart rate and speed. Further
research is required to investigate the effects of
running with music on injuries and performance.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Thomas Hoogeboom (0000 0004 1954
215X) for directing us to resources power calculation and effect
size calculations with a MBD and for the assistance with the cal-
culations of these effects.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the
work featured in this article.
ORCID
Niki Stolwijk http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0645-8111
Bart Staal http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0083-6380
Bas Van Hooren http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8163-693X
References
Adams, D., Pozzi, F., Carroll, A., Rombach, A., & Zeni Jr, J. (2016).
Validity and reliability of a commercial fitness watch for
measuring running dynamics. Journal of Orthopaedic &
Sports Physical Therapy, 46(6), 471–476.
Ahn, A. N., Brayton, C., Bhatia, T., & Martin, P. (2014). Muscle
activity and kinematics of forefoot and rearfoot strike
runners. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 3(2), 102–112.
Allen, D. J., Heisler, H., Mooney, J., & Kring, R. (2016). The effect
of step rate manipulation on foot strike pattern of long dis-
tance runners. International Journal of Sports Physical
Therapy, 11, 54–63.
Backman, C. L., Harris, S. R., Chisholm, J. A., & Monette, A. D.
(1997). Single-subject research in rehabilitation: A review
of studies using AB, withdrawal, multiple baseline, and alter-
nating treatments designs. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 78(10), 1145–1153.
Baumgartner, J., Gusmer, R., Hollman, J., & Finnoff, J. T. (2019).
Increased stride-rate in runners following an independent
retraining program: A randomized controlled trial.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 29
(11), 1789–1796.
Bood, R. J., Nijssen, M., Van Der Kamp, J., & Roerdink, M. (2013).
The power of auditory-motor synchronization in sports:
Enhancing running performance by coupling cadence with
the right beats. PloS One, 8(8), e70758 .
Bramah, C., Preece, S. J., Gill, N., & Herrington, L. (2019). A 10%
increase in step rate Improves Running kinematics and
Clinical outcomes in runners With patellofemoral pain at 4
weeks and 3 months. The American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 47(14), 3406–3413.
Buhmann, J., Moens, B., Van Dyck, E., Dotov, D., & Leman, M.
(2018). Optimizing beat synchronized running to music.
PloS one, 13(12), e0208702.
Bulte, I., & Onghena, P. (2009). Randomization tests for mul-
tiple-baseline designs: An extension of the SCRT-R
package. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 477–485.

Chan, Z. Y., Zhang, J. H., Au, I. P., An, W. W., Shum, G. L., Ng, G. Y.,
& Cheung, R. T. (2018). Gait retraining for the reduction of
injury occurrence in novice distance runners: 1-year
follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. The American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(2), 388–395.
Dos Santos, A. F., Nakagawa, T. H., Nakashima, G. Y., Maciel, C. D., &
Serrao, F. (2016). The effects of forefoot striking, increasing step
rate, and forward trunk lean running on trunk and lower limb
kinematics and comfort. IJSM, 37(05), 369–373.
Edwards, W. B., Taylor, D., Rudolphi, T. J., Gillette, J. C., & Derrick,
T. R. (2009). Effects of stride length and running mileage on a
probabilistic stress fracture model. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 41, 2177–2184.
Ferron, J., & Sentovich, C. (2002). Statistical power of randomiz-
ation tests used with multiple-baseline designs. JXE, 70(2),
165–178.
Heiderscheit, B., Chumanov, E. S., Michalski, M. P., Wille, C. M., &
Ryan, M. B. (2011). Effects of step rate manipulation on joint
mechanics during running. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 43, 296–302.
Jebabli, N., Granacher, U., Selmi, M. A., Al-Haddabi, B., Behm, D.
G., Chaouachi, A., & Haj Sassi, R. (2020). Listening to pre-
ferred music improved running performance without chan-
ging the pacing pattern during a 6 min Run test with young
male adults. Sports, 8(5), 61.
Lenhart, R. L., Smith, C. R., Vignos, M. F., Kaiser, J., Heiderscheit,
B. C., & Thelen, D. G. (2015). Influence of step rate and quad-
riceps load distribution on patellofemoral cartilage contact
pressures during running. Journal of Biomechanics, 48(11),
2871–2878.
Lenhart, R. L., Thelen, D. G., Wille, C. M., Chumanov, E. S., &
Heiderscheit, B. C. (2014). Increasing running step rate
reduces patellofemoral joint forces. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 46(3), 557.
Lyght, M., Nockerts, M., Kernozek, T. W., & Ragan, R. (2016).
Effects of foot strike and step frequency on Achilles
tendon stress during running. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, 32(4), 365–372.
Mendonça, C., Oliveira, M., Fontes, L., & Santos, J. (2014). The
effect of instruction to synchronize over step frequency
while walking with auditory cues on a treadmill. Human
Movement Science, 33, 33–42.
Napier, C., MacLean, C. L., Maurer, J., Taunton, J., & Hunt, M. A.
(2018a). Kinetic risk factors of running-related injuries in
female recreational runners. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports, 28(10), 2164–2172.
Napier, C., MacLean, C. L., Maurer, J., Taunton, J. E., & Hunt, M. A.
(2018b). Real-Time biofeedback of performance to reduce
braking forces associated With running-related injury: An
exploratory study. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical
Therapy, 49(3), 136–144.
Neal, B. S., Barton, C. J., Birn-Jeffrey, A., Daley, M., & Morrissey, D.
(2018). The effects & mechanisms of increasing running step
rate: A feasibility study in a mixed-sex group of runners with
patellofemoral pain. Physical Therapy in Sport, 32, 244–251.
Neal, B. S., Barton, C. J., Gallie, R., O’Halloran, P., & Morrissey, D.
(2016). Runners with patellofemoral pain have altered bio-
mechanics which targeted interventions can modify: A sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis. Gait & Posture, 45, 69–82.
Neuman, S. B. (2011). Single-subject experimental design. In N.
K. Duke, & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE 353
methodologies (2nd edn, pp. 383–404). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Nunns, M., House, C., Fallowfield, J., Allsopp, A., & Dixon, S.
(2013). Biomechanical characteristics of barefoot foot-
strike modalities. Journal of Biomechanics, 46(15), 2603–
2610.
Onghena, P., & Edgington, E. S. (2015). Customization of pain
treatments: Single-Case design and analysis. The Clinical
Journal of Pain, 21(1), 56–68.
Pustejovsky, J. E., Hedges, L. V., & Shadish, W. R. (2014).
Design-comparable effect sizes in multiple baseline
designs: A general modeling framework. JEBS, 39(5), 368–
393.
Quinn, T. J., Dempsey, S. L., LaRoche, D. P., Mackenzie, A. M., &
Cook, S. B. (2019). Step frequency training Improves running
economy in well-trained female runners. JSCR, 35(9), 2511–
2517.
Schubert, A. G., Kempf, J., & Heiderscheit, B. C. (2014). Influence
of stride frequency and length on running mechanics: A sys-
tematic review. Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 6
(3), 210–217.
Van Dyck, E., Buhmann, J., & Lorenzoni, V. (2020). Instructed
versus spontaneous entrainment of running cadence to
music tempo. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci, 1489(1), 91–102.
Van Dyck, E., Moens, B., Buhmann, J., Demey, M., Coorevits, E.,
Dalla Bella, S., & Leman, M. (2015). Spontaneous entrainment
of running cadence to music tempo. Sports Medicine - Open,
1(1), 15.
Van Hooren, B., Goudsmit, J., Restrepo, J., & Vos, S. (2020). Real-
time feedback by wearables in running: Current approaches,
challenges and suggestions for improvements. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 38(2), 214–230.
Videbæk, S., Bueno, A. M., Nielsen, R. O., & Rasmussen, S. (2015).
Incidence of running-related injuries per 1000 h of running
in different types of runners: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(7), 1017–1026.
Wahl, Y., Düking, P., Droszez, A., Wahl, P., & Mester, J. (2017).
Criterion-validity of commercially available physical activity
tracker to estimate step count, covered distance and
energy expenditure during sports conditions. Frontiers in
Physiology, 8, 725.
Wellenkotter, J., Kernozek, T. W., Meardon, S., & Suchomel, T.
(2014). The effects of running cadence manipulation on
plantar loading in healthy runners. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 35(09), 779–784.
Willy, R. W., Buchenic, L., Rogacki, K., Ackerman, J., Schmidt, A.,
& Willson, J. D. (2016). In-field gait retraining and mobile
monitoring to address running biomechanics associated
with tibial stress fracture. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine
& Science in Sports, 26(2), 197–205.
Willy, R. W., Manal, K. T., Witvrouw, E. E., & Davis, I. S. (2012). Are
mechanics different between male and female runners with
patellofemoral pain? Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
44(11), 2165–2171.
Willy, R. W., Meardon, S. A., Schmidt, A., Blaylock, N. R., Hadding,
S. A., & Willson, J. D. (2016). Changes in tibiofemoral contact
forces during running in response to in-field gait retraining.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(17), 1602–1611.
Winstein, C. (1991). Knowledge of results and motor learn-
ing–implications for Physical therapy. Physical Therapy, 71
(2), 10.
354 M. T. BRAKE ET AL.

Appendix A. Music songs cadence.

Cadence Music song

170 BPM 1. Music for Running on the Treadmill 170 BPM (Virtual Scenery)
#06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcPNmpLKcRo&t=769s
2. Hardtrance 90’s (170 bpm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPbbBh2bipI&t=2268s
175 BPM 1. 175 BPM Running Music [Virtual Scenery] #02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QCRuaNCzco&t=661s
2. 175 BPM Running Music [Virtual Scenery] #03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKM4DwVJisk&t=284s
180 BPM 1. [180bpm] Running/Workout NOSTALGIA Mix Rrright in your
feels!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qRYKd5dsiY&t=957s
2.♫!BEST EDM MUSIC REMIX #2 180BPM!BASS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFqIh5CIl_4&t=2368s
185 BPM 1. 185 BPM Nnnyyyeeeooowww!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vxGRZaUWDw&t=2190s
2. 185 BPM Hyper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CPzBn0hOo8&t=795s