I suspect people will be lining up to correct me on this, but I think the main reason that the trainer is seen as more time-efficient is that you are pedalling 100% of the time.
No coasting. No drafting.

As you suggested, the relationship with running and treadmills works the other way, IMO. A treadmill actually assists your running, which is why an incline of at least 1% is usually recommended. I'd still rate the outdoor run over a treadmill run, even in your example. Dealing with slight variations in pavement, wind, grade (flat is never really totally flat), etc. all make the outdoor run more beneficial in my eyes.
Treadmills are good for mental fortitude, but then so is running outside, in the dark, when it's snowing.

(I hardly ever run indoors, and this winter I've ridden the trainer maybe 5 times. I like being outdoors, even if the weather sucks.)

---

----------------------------------
http://ironvision.blogspot.com ; @drSteve1663

The time is equivalent, if you run with a 1% grade. Is running outside better? Probably, but you can get in great shape running on the mill. You can do great tempo or progression runs, and the mill is usually more forgiving on the legs.

I find you can do more intensity, more often on the treadmill largely because if you do hill repeats, you're not having to run downhill....so you can do long hill intervals or continuous uphill runs too, that you generally can't do outdoors. Also the treadmill offers the opportunity to do intensity runs when outside running may not be ideal ( ice, snow, different city with bad running location etc). But other than that, you can't beat running outdoors. When running outdoors there is a lot more coordination, balance, and timing in play. It seems like that should be trivial, but having gone through a fairly bad head injury a few years ago, I have found that outdoor running takes a lot more mental effort. For "able bodied" athletes, you probably don't notice this, but it does take more background processing in a long race that you probably don't realize you are doing. On a treamilll you don't have to do that as there are no variations in terrain, footing, light, wind, sun etc. It all adds up to more than you realize.

generally, running a 7min/mi on a 'mill is easier than doing it on the road.

but a heart rate of 160bpm is the same no matter where you are.

So, you may not get quite the agility and variation of training that uneven surfaces offer, but do your heart and lungs know the difference?

+1 on HR comment

My husband and I just had this discussion, and he won with actual data (found for us by a friend who is both a very fast runner and a kinesiologist). You might need access to a library with a subscription to this journal to read it, but here's the reference: D. R. Bassett, M. D. Giese, F. J. Nagle, A. Ward, D. M. Raab and B. Balke, "Aerobic requirements of overground versus treadmill running," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1985, Vol. 17, Issue 4, p. 477.

And here's the punchline: they used the gold standard, which is to measure respiration (energy use) on identical inclines on a treadmill and a road, and they're indistinguishable. Every runner I know (including myself and the friend who helped us with this question), and every popular source I've seen, believes/claims that treadmill running is "easier" even when you compare 1% incline on a treadmill to a flat road. But according to this study (by very well-known people in the field), it just isn't true. Interesting note: my husband asked the lead author about this work, and he said his advisers assumed the opposite answer was true (treadmill IS easier than road) and were surprised/disappointed when he didn't prove that.

Also, if you go to the trouble of finding the paper, there's a hilarious picture in it showing how they drove alongside the runner, with someone perched on the hood of the car, to carry the apparatus used to measure respiration.

I am not sure if I am more excited to read this article or see this picture! Thank you for sharing.

you just made my night...

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

So, it sounds like this research is saying that you don't even need to put the mill on 1% grade, that 0% grade on the mill = 0% grade outside. Am I interpreting correctly here??? Thanks for providing this very interesting info!!!

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Been relegated to the treadmill lately due to crazy snow and cold...I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this thread...treadmill is painfull (yes on 1%)...I go slower than I do outside, it feels worse, my pace is down, it's like pulling teeth to put in any meaningful mileage but I still do it but I can't fathom the treadmill being "easier" when it's such a mental mindf*ck

I have experienced the opposite. My garage, where my treadmill is situated, is under repairs at the moment and I miss running on that machine so much. It takes so much more effort 5 am to dress up for winter conditions and go out running compared going to warm garage for a run on a treadmill. It has also been quite cold here last weeks.

Oh, my paces is 20-30 sec/km better on a treadmill.

haha, that image is great!
I need to go over that paper in the morning once the night's beers have lost their effect.

The treadmill is a great tool. Coaches such as Jack Daniels have always championed its use for sessions such as hill repeats that you just can't get done on a road.
In that respect its very like the turbo.

That being said, is it easier or harder? Its hard to say really. There is definitely an element of acclimatisation to the way a treadmill works. i.e that the belt moves underneath you, rather than you moving over it. This can encourage a 'bouncier' stride as you use vertical oscillation to increase your flight phase, thus allowing more of the treadmill to move underneath you and increased speed. This does not work on the road and the vertical force will only send you upwards!

In watching subjects who have spent a good amount of time on a treadmill they definitely display this trait, and it can often result in faster times on the treadmill than on the road. This is often the cause, coupled with a small amount of wind resistance.

But, that being said the treadmill can teach you to lift up your foot and flick up rather than push or scrape back, which is wrong. This is because of the rapidly moving belt will make this feel awkward and won't help.

So there are definitely some benefits, but I would say limit you treadmill running to 1-2 times a week, making sure you are also running outside, then you will get the benefits on the treadmill but you won't end up permanently altering your mechanics as above.

Due to my age (54), I do the majority of my runs on a TM. I find it is more forgiving on my joints. Unlike Dev, I find I have to stay more focused on a TM than outside. While running on a TM, I have to stare straight at the monitor, or I will fall off. Apparently I have poor balance and meander from left to right a bit. On the TM this is not an option. Outside I can look around and I won't go crashing to the floor if a vear left our right ten inches. Not so on the TM.

As for which is harder, heck, I find great variations amongst TMs themselves. Either way, I agree a HRM should tell you.

My experience is just the opposite, I find at a given pace my perception of effort is higher on a treadmill.

Unless air temp, humidity or airspeed across your body are different so that cooling demands are different. Then not so much.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Same here. I'd rather run a 6:30 mile outside than on the treadmill. Feels like less effort.

I feel like on the treadmill I lose some of the forward propulsion I get outside. Instead I feel like I'm just spinning my legs to keep up. That being said, when I do a lot of targeted treadmill training in the winter and then go outside my running feels more efficient.

---

_____________________________________________________
Instagram | Team Kiwami North America

i have 143 BPM running outside at 7:35/mile, and run at 143 BPM running at 8:34/mile on treadmil.

"A treadmill actually assists your running"

No.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

I can only assume it changes my biomechanics and muscle activity somehow. Whenever I do a hard run on a treadmill by the end I feel like I'm "tying up" or something and again this is at a considerably slower pace than I know I can run outdoors where this same phenomenon never happens.

Same here (except for the 6:30 bit- you're a beast). I've been trying to pay attention more to my TM running and I think that I run in a different position and have a different hip drive. Outside, I lean a bit more forward, rotating at the ankles. Inside, I'm more vertical without any forward rotation. I suspect that this is the reason for the TM feeling harder at slower paces. Like you, I am feeling faster and more efficient when I'm outside. I assume that this is a result of having more mileage and consistency than simply accolading the treadmill itself (I can't bring myself to do that).


P.S. Race you in April- Flower City Du?

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Marcel.....you described everything that happened to my running gait after I used the treadmill a lot after first recovering from a fairly bad bike crash a few years ago. Initially because my head and neck were still sensitive, the treadmill had "less jarring" but now I realize it if because the mill goes at constant velocity while running outside there is a slight deceleration and acceleration on every stride that my neck would feel. Also, I was running a lot of hill intervals, probably making my stride bouncier yet. You are correct that on the treadmill you can get away with "less hip extension" (scaping back), so I have actively been trying to do that this winter on treadmill runs.

Rest wrote:

i have 143 BPM running outside at 7:35/mile, and run at 143 BPM running at 8:34/mile on treadmil.

For me, I can cruise outdoors all day at 5 min per K/8 min per mile/7.5 mph, yet on the treadmill it feels a lot harder. There are several things that come into play (in my view):

• Cooling/airflow. Most gyms have none. I use a fan at home just like I use on my trainer (well, it is the same fan, I just move it sideways by 3 feet)
• Calibration....I swear my treadmill at home reads around 0.5 mph slower than the ones at the gym. That's fine, I don't try to equate paces
• The "spinning wheels effect". My thought is that it depends on what type of a runner you are. If you are a hip extension/push off type runner, you'll lose more at high speed on the treadmill, whereas, if you flick your foot at the ankle as soon as the ball of the foot is under you and throw your knees forward, you'll find the treadmill easier. As Marcel said, people literally change their gait with too much treadmill running to be "faster" on the treadmilll vs. but then they are slower outside.

People really need to just ignore whether TM pace feels harder or slower. It all depends what real world you're comparing to (even on a flat track, different temps, wind and surfaces will affect your pace more than you might think), and how well your TM replicates an exact displayed pace.

Goes without saying that TMs have range of accuracy, depending on maintenance, and likely even user weight in a lot of cases. So if your TM is setup such that a true 7min mile effort for you reads on the TM as 7:20, or even 7:10, it'll feel hard, even on 0%. Push it to Vo2 repeats, and it'll be impossibly hard, even if it's a mere 5sec/mile pace off compared to a track.

You can get a sense of how close the TM you use correlates with real world by just field testing in vs out, just as you would to with powertap testing indoors vs out. They will typically be close, but not dead on, and as can be seen, even a 1% variance will be very noticeable in many circumstances.

Yes. Treadmill belt moves underneath you and we only use predominantly anterior muscles to lift our legs in that situation. Outside we actually need glutes and hamstrings to contract and help propel us forward as well as slow down the leg. On a treadmill, hip flexors doing a lot more work to lift the leg to meet the speed that the belt is moving underneath.

So while HR is HR and that's good for training effect, I think most people agree that treadmill used sparingly is good for interval work and occasional workouts. But you can't train on a mill for long and expect to keep the same pace at equal effort. So while HR on a treadmill at 7 min pace might be XX, HR outside at that same 7 min pace is going to be XX+ and youre going to fatigue a lot quicker in your posterior chain muscles.

Disagree. From practical experience. I did most of my winter runs as a pure runner for marathon training on a TM and it exactly matched outdoor running. I did mix up paces and elevations, but there is no truth in that TMs are lacking for biomechanics of run training. And it's more than just n=1 myself - if you train hard on a TM, you'll run faster outdoors.

You admitted that you mixed up paces and elevations which is how you maximized training effects. And you're also a seasoned runner (assuming?). So this wasn't your only method of training. I agree the treadmill can be used as a great training tool, I use it when I can't get outside, but not as an only means. I know a handful of people who tried training for their road races on a treadmill and were thrilled with their treadmill runs but couldn't understand why race day was so much harder.

The ground IS moving underneath you bottom line. If you use it appropriately then you'll benefit from it sure.

-----

Attaching some stretch cords to the wall or something heavy behind you and then to a waist band soon makes you engage your glutes and hammies more as you try not to get pulled off the back of the t-mill..



---

The heart rate argument is correct. Obviously 1 hr at 160 H.R. is as difficult on a treadmill as it is on the road.
There are some obvious differences between a treadmill running and non-treadmill running.
The effect of wind is one. The link below shows how different paces on a treadmill correspond to different paces in the real world combined and how treadmill incline can adjust.
It is true that the treadmill is not much easier at 10 minute miles. It is also true that it is a lot easier at 5 minute miles.

http://www.hillrunner.com/training/tmillchart.php

Something that this does not consider is running form.
I think bouncers (or bounders) will really see a huge, unrealistic, improvement in there treadmill speed.

I disagree on the HR front. My HR on a treadmill is generally 5 beats higher for a given speed than outside. Outside my 'easy pace' is in the 7:30-7:45 range with a HR in the 145 range. On a treadmill my HR is easily 150 or higher. I definitely only use a treadmill when I have to, and unfortunately that has been more than I would prefer this winter.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

The only difference will be no wind drag and consistent surface in terms of traction, cracks, holes, and elevation chances.

My understanding of physics tells me that me moving over the ground vs. the ground moving under me is absolutely identical. If you put on a blindfold and run in a vacuum (no wind drag) you would be unable ot distinguish the two other than the surface itself.

I also believe that th softness of the surface is somewhat relative. You body tends ot "run softer" when presented with a harder surface. I thought there was a study showing no difference in injury rate from running gravel vs. asphault vs concrete after allowing for a short period of adaptation.

I do find that the treadmill is great for intervals as your speed is held constant. You cna focus more on you form, cadence and breathing and less on your pace, traffic, etc.

Now, it is more of a mental challenge for sure. The longest run I've managed this winter has been 75 minutes. But i have a long run planned on Thursday, and I don't see myself running 16 miles in 0F at 5:00AM. So it might be on the treadmill instead.


My favorite treadmill pleasure, are those that are limited to 60 minute workouts, like when I was on a cruise ship last week. So I had to warm-up, reset it, do my workout, reset, then cool down. iIt was a shock to be cranking along at a 6:00 tempo pace and suddenly the thing drops down to the preset 15:00/mi "jog" speed...to cool down. which is like a brisk walking pace.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

http://www.hillrunner.com/training/tmillchart.php

Most questions are answered there.

While I believe the chart and resistance from wind factors, the trump reality is that TM calibrations are usually slightly different as I keep bringing up.

All that wind and other adjustments are meaningless compared to the TM calibration. If your TM is calibrated slightly slow, it'll feel hard to run on for the same displayed pace. You can talk all you want about the variables making Tm vs real world different, but they're all moot compared to the overarching factor of how well the TM is calibrated, and even to what standard it's calibrated to.

I'm also not sure why people tend to complain about TM pacing so much - outdoor pacing is just as variable due to the different elevation, terrain, wind, and turns. If anything, a good Tm is much more precise than outdoor running if you only use that TM.

Was about to post something similar. Go to a gym and run a particular pace for a mile on 5 different treadmills and they'll all feel different.

Nate...your heart rate is likely higher just because of cooling effects not existing on the treadmill. Are you using a fan?

All good post. Sometimes basic facts are missed, in favor of dramatic arguments.
On a side note, I saw two people arguing.
Runner one- the course was short. My Garmin says so.
Runner two- yeah. The course was short but .2 longer than your watch says. My Garmin says.....

Oddlly, this is the one case were the Garmin worshippers were not totally wrong. Race director admits course is short but chose to not adjust or restate distance on this trail race, so that people could compare their times from year to year.

I often wondered why treadmills always tell you, you are running faster than you really are.

I know several occasional exercisers in there 40s who can run under 19 for 5 k. Here is how their reasoning goes:
1) I can run 7 min/miles on the treadmill. (The treadmill is, of course correct, at a 0% incline).
2) A 5 k is three miles. I can run 1 mile in 7 minutes during a workout. That means I should be able to run 3 at a much faster pace in a race. 19 should be easy.

They tell you not to argue with an idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Anyway, part of me thinks it would be a simple enough matter for treadmill makers and gyms to correct the problem. And that they do not, because they like the fact that your dollars can buy imaginary speed. (Though real running speed might be just as easily achieved for free).

Sheesh..these guys are arguing about distance in a TRAIL race? WTF? Get a life. It is a trail race for a reason...you want precise distance go to an IAAF certified course, or run on you local 400m track!!!

"Treadmill belt moves underneath you and we only use predominantly anterior muscles to lift our legs in that situation. Outside we actually need glutes and hamstrings to contract and help propel us forward as well as slow down the leg. On a treadmill, hip flexors doing a lot more work to lift the leg to meet the speed that the belt is moving underneath."

Again, no. The whole "the belt moves underneath you" argument is totally invalid. The idea that you are just "lifting" to stay in place is ridiculous, next time just stand on the treadmill and jump straight up a few times while the belt moves underneath you and see where you end up.

Other than the lack of air resistance the physics of move forward over a stationary ground are basically identical to moving in place over a ground that's moving backwards beneath you.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

I feel the same way about body position. Outside I can feel myself lean forward and drive with my hips more. It's much harder for me to do that on the treadmill.

I am racing Puerto Rico a couple weeks before Flower City, but I would imagine I will still sign up and race that again. I'll see you there and then again at Keuka.

---

_____________________________________________________
Instagram | Team Kiwami North America

I've found an hour is an hour no matter what I'm doing.

However, I can definitely finish a workout faster on the treadmill as its in my basement, so I don't need to plan and dress for the weather, but it is slightly offset by my pace being noticeably faster outside so its really a net zero for me.

But if I watch TV on the treadmill (or the trainer) then I guess there is a 2 to 1 ratio as I completed a workout and watched a show at the same time.

A few years ago I did Boston and trained primarily on the t/m. Fast forward to race day, and my quads were hamburger before 10k. Why? Because the t/m is a soft, cushioned run. Then running as fast as you can for 26.2 on asphault and cement pavement did me in. Now I do my speed work on the t/m but always run at least two times a week outside. This may not happen to everyone, but for me it was a disaster.

---

Barry Dmitruk
2017: Florida 70.3 (done); Mont Tremblant 70.3 & Ironman

I'm in the same boat, and thought I was going crazy - running at 7.5mph (8min/mi, 5min/km) I can do all day long on the road, and on the mill it felt so much harder. Then I got a footpod. Turns out that the mill's 7.5mph is in fact something like 4.40min/km, which is 7.30min/mi or 8mph.

All I can say is that I want all those miles I logged at a too low speed in the 100/100 back. Or added. Or whatever.

What remains though is the mental mindfuck (how's that for redundancy).

---

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.

I actually think it's harder than it sounds to precisely calibrate a TM. I don't think it's as simple as belt distance, or even if it was, the accuracy of the belt measurement would have to be so accurate given the number of rpms that it would be difficult to precisely calibrate per mile. The variability of TMs even at premium gyms like Equinox in the same gym make me suspect this.

I also suspect that home TMs, even good ones like SoleF80 probably change speed slightly with runner weight (but I'm speculating here, I don't know for sure). I know for sure that when you listen to the engine motor sound between myself and my wife who's 40 pounds lighter than me, it sounds noticeably different on my F80. I could be wrong but I can't help but think there's more stress on the engine moving my weight rather than hers - it sure sounds like it.

I read a study that said the difference between indoor and outdoor increases the faster you go as the wind resistance is higher. That paces above high 4min kms is slow enough that an incline isn't needed.

As much as I'd rather run outside. With my bad run of injuries over last 6months. Many of my runs are done on the treadmill as it's much easier in the legs. And I can get off as doonan s I feel pain.

I know Alberto Salazar and his group use it a lot.

---

__________________________________________________
http://twitter.com/willrc91 --- instragram.com/willrc91

Are you sure it wasn't because the first 10k at Boston are straight downhill and most treadmills can't do negative grades?

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

Pretty sure. I have done Boston twice and the second time in my prep I did a lot more outdoor running.

---

Barry Dmitruk
2017: Florida 70.3 (done); Mont Tremblant 70.3 & Ironman

I tend to agree with Barry. When you train on treadmill all the time, you can run more sloppy and pound the belt hard with no negative consequence. It is easier to get lulled into this. When you run outside, you have to run a bit "softer" to account for the hard pavement. By the way, I did one Boston were I did almost all my weekday runs on the treadmill and once per week I ran a 39 min 10K "DOWNHILL" on a minus 2 to minus 4 percent grade. I did this by elevating the back end of my treadmill so that it is "level" at a 4% grade, which allowed me to go to minus 4 at zero percent grade. You need a decent horsepower motor to lift you uphill on every stride and it is helpful to be a smaller athlete so that your treadmill has to lift you "uphill" less on each stride. I also had a fan running on the motor for these workouts. Both days on the weekend I had outdoor runs. That was my best race in Boston, but it could just be a function of having a decent winter of mileage and starving myself in March to drop around 7 lbs and get down to 137 lbs from 144 lbs.

Funny that you mention this, because I had the same question so decided to try it out by putting my bike on the treadmill.

First, i set the bike on the treadmill without me sitting on it, and looking at the speed at all the preset speeds (i.e. 2 to 12mph in steps of 2mph). Turns out, the speed was spot on on my Sole F83. It was also very stable.

Next, I did the same thing but with me sitting on the bike. The added weight slows the treadmill down, but then it measures its own speed, knows it's off and increases it until it is again spot on. The treadmill motor has to work harder, but the speed is still what it should be.

Did the same thing with the treadmill at 15% incline, no difference.

---

_____________________
Don't forget to attack!

I develop blisters on the balls of my feet from running hill repeats on a treadmill. Do you?

---

Proud Representative of Slowtwitch Anti-Atheists Society.

Now I hate you...I could have sworn my treadmill was around 0.5 mph slow...after putting my bike on it, it measures bang on to my bike computer, which I know measures the distance to my office bang on with my bike and my GPS, so I guess I just run 0.5 mph than I'd like to think on the treadmill.

No issues with blisters on the ball of my foot running treadmill intervals, but I have also run several Ironmans with no socks and no blister, so I am not the right guy to ask about this. My feet generally don't get that many blisters. All my treadmill runs are no socks too just to keep them fairly solid for tri season (also I don't sweat much in my feet so that's an advantage).

Cool - thx for the info on those tests. Makes me have more faith in the precision of the Sole F80. Although I will admit, I still have my doubts - while I love your data/results, I still wonder if the F80 is smart enough to recalibrate precise paces with the varaible speed of footsteps. (You can hear the engine run harder with each step.)

The HR argument posted here is not necessarily correct. HR is a relative measure of oxygen cost, but it fails to distinguish changes in oxygen demand due to changes in work efficiency. HR will increase if running efficiency decreases on the treadmill due to less efficient mechanics compared to over ground.

That's a good point. It does help if the treadmill at your gym isn't the best maintained and rattles a bit. I actually focus on trying to reduce the noise my foot strikes make. IF I lander realyl hard, my watter bottle starts shaking. Though some of that may be a resonance.

Most of the the time I use my footpod, which is actually calibrated pretty well and more accurate than I would expect. Then I can track my cadence a lot easier too.

Thursday it's calling for -7F in the morning. I have a 16 mile run planned..... so do I either rearrange my training schedule or suck it up and run almost 2 hours indoors? Maybe a nice long 2 hour indoor run will increase my metal toughness for an IM run. I might have to throw in some short tempo efforts here and there to break it up a little.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

I totally disagree with the notion that you reduce impact to your leg by paying attention to how loud your footstrikes are. It seems to me not any different than the myth of buying more padded shoes to reduce impact of footstrike on the ground, which I'm pretty sure has been debunked. (More padded shoes do not reduce risk of injury or even weightloading.)

So all of the above can be summarized as "it depends".

I try to not hate the TM because sometimes it's just necessary – TMs are harder mentally for me. If I have to run on the TM, I usually throw on a Sufferfest video and change the effort to match. Yesterday I had an added wrinkle, as parenting duties worked out, if I wanted to train I had to do it with the 2.5yr old too - he let me get a in 30min ride followed by a 45 min run, but that was while watching Alvin and the Chipmunks and at times watching for little fingers or dodging the toys/shoes he would toss on to watch them fly off the back. So ya, TM can be harder.

---

Head down, thumbs up, give'r
@barrettdj

I find that treadmill running does not properly develop glute strength; After very harsh winters I can feel this when I begin to run outside again.
We're having a very mild winter in Sweden and I only use the treadmill once a week.

---

#######
My Blog

I could make the exact same argument against running on asphalt, versus running on singletrack. Insufficient surface variation leads to specific muscle imbalances. Many people seem to overlook the fact that the treadmill is just one of many available running surfaces, and is not a drop-in replacement for any other.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the outdoor running was from east to west?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Physics takes a beating once again in the alternate universe that is slowtwitch.

So you are running at 7min/mile outdoors. There is a set of muscles that enable you to do that.

So you are running on a treadmill whose belt speed is 7min/mile. What set of muscles prevents you from being pulled backwards at 7min/mile? How does that set of muscles differ from the set of muscles used outdoors?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Kind of timely

http://www.runnersworld.com/treadmills/biomechanics-expert-debunks-treadmill-running-myths?page=single#.Uu-zySsDWaA.facebook

im a pretty good judge of pace and can totally tell how off the accuracy is on my TM. its a good TM too, its a true. not known for being that off but the one i have so is awful. i can run 7min pace all day long outside and mapped courses and the track. 7min on my TM feels like 6ish. so assuming its perfectly calibrated trying to go by a certain distance on the TM is a mistake. i figure they are all slightly off one way or another so i really just try to focus on effort. i cover the display with towel or shirt. i was in barcelona this past summer and was on a very nice TM that said i was cruising at 18k and hour. probably not but i sure as hell didnt cover the display that time.

This is superbly interesting. There seems to be three camps. First the its way easier on the treadmill camp and second the its way harder on the treadmill camp. The third presents scientific evidence to a more neutral experience.

I am a member of camp 2, its harder on the treadmill. However I am sure that all three are actually correct depending on your gait. I therefore wonder what about my gate makes it harder for me? Given that running is my weakness I am always interested in how I improve there.

To the group, what running gaits would make running on the treadmill harder or easier?

---

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Member of FishTwitch - Arriving to T1 alone and watching you go by on the run.
My Blog: http://poseidom.wordpress.com

Maybe it could have something to do with the way one subconsciously adjusts one's gait according to one's visual surroundings--i. e., the brain/body interaction. If you're used to judging your speed by looking off in the distance, might that not make it harder to adjust your gait to the speed of a treadmill? Similarly, if you're used to adjusting your gait according to your view of a treadmill panel in front of you, maybe you'd run less efficiently outdoors?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

The obvious explanation as said above by myself and many:

TM calibrations varies. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. Just go to the local upscale gym and try each of their TMs - they'll often be off by 5, 10, sometimes 30sec/mile when compared to each other.

I don't know why people keep ignoring this issue and keep on making it so complicated, like wind, footstrike pressure, gait alteration, etc.

To date, aside from the Woodway treadmill, I have never seen hard proof that treadmills are super accurate across a wide weight range of runners. Most of them are pretty darn close, but as we all know, even 5sec/mile difference is the difference between surviving and failing when doing VO2 intervals.

Furthermore, the gold standard of outdoors is also hugely subjective. Even on a track. Temps, winds, how you feel that day, all subjective. I'd be willing to wager that subjective factors on a run have similar variability on the whole as the small differences in TM calibration. If anything, one should be asking why they feel so differently on various outdoor runs since good TMs tend to be extremely precise for a single user and pretty close to accurate (of course, this presumes one user on the same treadmill repeatedly.)

Exactly...the BELT speed is 7min/mile. Glute and hamstring activation in the terminal stance phases of gait/running are concentric to push off the ground and propel the body forward over the stationary ground. On a treadmill the ground is moving underneath you and what prevents you from moving backwards is the hip flexion and quadriceps when they lift the leg off of the ground and bring it forward. It is very difficult to push off of a surface that is in fact moving away from you. Which is why I said we PREDOMINANTLY use anterior muscles on the treadmill. You will still have posterior chain activation, especially in terminal swing to slow the leg down and at initial contact to help stabilize the leg, but not nearly as much to propel you forward because there is no need for that.

I'm not arguing the physics, I'm arguing that in one situation the ground is moving behind you and in another situation you are moving on the ground.

Imagine there is a flat and straight treadmill for hundreds of yards. You run in place at a 7 min pace for 5 min (basic treadmill). NOW imagine you have to not only run in place, but you actually have to keep moving forward towards the end of the treadmill WHILE its moving backwards on you. I can guarantee you that your glutes and hamstrings are going to be lighting up in the latter situation. This is because you actually have to ADVANCE over the ground versus the ground moving underneath you.

I'm not claiming you are not using muscles, I'm making the claim that the muscle groups you are using are using are very different than while running outside on stationary ground.

And the take home was that this will affect deconditioned people who think they can train mostly on treadmills and get away with the same ease outside. For the rest of us, treadmills can be a great tool.

I would agree. Or even something in front of you applying constant resistance to your chest forcing you to prevent the same thing.

Sounds like you dont run on tms much .

While the stuff youre saying sounds like it should play out that way, do it and youll find theres no overactivation of glutes and that the tm translates great to real world running. Sure the surface and spring are a bit different but if you even do minimal road work on top youre good to go outdoors.

Yes, you are. And physics will win every time.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

What do you think the belt is doing?!?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

or maybe you will feel your glute activation because you are now asked to run significantly faster than 7 min pace. If you slow the treadmill down (say to 8min pace) you will move foward while maintaining the same pace/effort/butt activation.

If I am already moving backwards on a treadmill and then I jump straight up, of course I am going to land farther back than where I was initially standing. If however I was able to time it exactly and jump at the exact moment the treadmill started then I would land in the same place I started from.

When it comes to physics and distance covered, the ground direction may be irrelevant for say, a wheel? Because the wheel does not have to rely on a specifically located set of muscles to produce energy. It can roll freely. I'm not arguing over the distance covered, I'm arguing over HOW that distance is covered.

Our body is anatomically designed with agonistic and antagonistic muscle groups. For you to deny that posterior chain muscles propel us forward over a stationary surface and that they do the same work while stationary on a backwards moving surface is, as you said, "ridiculous." It requires much less work for those muscles to cover the same amount of ground outside than it does inside.

Hypothetical: EMG electrodes places on the glutes/hammies/quads. Squat down and jump forward on the level ground. Measure force and total distance traveled. Now imagine you could do this and just as you jumped the belt moved underneath you backwards. Measure force output and total distance of the belt traveled. For the same amount of force, the total distance on the treadmill is going to be greater no?

lightheir - not missing your point at all. I have run on enough that there are varied intensities across treadmills and I can identify the major outliers (significantly fast or slow). However for me any treadmill feels harder. What about me makes that so and others perceive the opposite?

Airflow is something that I am going to play with this week and see what that does.

---

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Member of FishTwitch - Arriving to T1 alone and watching you go by on the run.
My Blog: http://poseidom.wordpress.com

Umm...PULLING your foot on the ground. think about it, how effective is it going to be to PUSH OFF of a surface moving backwards and away from you versus just lifting your leg? I understand what you are saying, but think about what the ground is doing, really. If the goal in a treadmill is to keep moving forward then yes. But the goal on a treadmill is to stay in one place as the ground moves backwards underneath you. Thus an equal and opposite action to lift the legs is going to be more necessary.

how is a belt moving under a stationary object (the runner) any different than a moving object moving over a stationary ground? It's all relative (like the fly in the concord moving at the speed of sound or something like that)

My last "contribution" to this thread: the physics of running on a treadmill and running on the ground are the same. Your body doesn't know the difference (except the minor nits of differing surfaces, etc.). Look up and learn about "frame of reference".

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

To clarify, I'm not arguing with the total amount of force or effort required to run x mph outside or on a tmill. I'm saying the origin of the effort is from different muscles with a moving ground or a stationary ground.

From a speed perspective? Its not. But our body generates speed from different muscles and I'm saying the differences of tmill and road play a roll in dictating where the energy for that speed comes from.

JFR.

You just haven't tried enough of them. Trust me, there are some TMs in the gym that will tell you you're running 40sec/mile or more faster than your actual pace. You can see on the forums at how many people need to add incline, like 1% or more, to make it feel like effort equal to that of road. (I do that on my Sole F80 myself - it's apparently calibrated really well, but at 0% incline, at least with my weight, it feels easier than road to me.)

I do know that all these theoretical arguments about muscle recruitment, moving belts, etc., that SOUND good and logical as to why TMs shouldn't work well at all for training - are false in practice. You run fast enough to improve on a TM, you will improve your outdoor pace. You won't overstrain your glutes, you won't have to do additional strength or other movements to supplement, and you won't lose all your coordination. They're amazing tools - nearly as good as a Computrainer in ERG mode, if you think about it, yet very few people rave about this even if they'll rave about ERG mode on the CT/Kickr.

Your assumption is 100% correct if the frames of reference are moving identical relative to each other outdoors or the treadmill. The treadmill moves at constant velocity at all speeds. At higher speeds outdoors there is not exactly a constant velocity between the frames on each stride. There is a subtle deceleration and acceleration per stride between the frames of reference. I think this is what all the arguing and banter overlooks. Now the question is "what speed" does this kick in at? At higher speeds, running is connecting a series of bounds (when the stride length is long enough and the flight phase is long enough and as you know, during a long flight phase you are certainly decelerating in flight after losing contact with the ground as there is no more propulsion and air resistance slows the body down).

I was surprised it took so long for you to find this thread :-)

Careful though, Yeeper is stubborn.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

I only do when I have to.

I agree with you here. A good solid running base allows for max benefits of using a treadmill. Even people who want to use them all winter and then get back to outdoors. Most of us here have a solid run base and our muscles are adapted. So the differences in a treadmill/road are negligible to us. But Take someone who does not have a strong run background and they train all winter long on a tm. Not even the "minimal road work" you alluded to. Then they toe the line at their road race, its gonna be a rough run.

On here you'll find plenty of n=1s saying they're just fine or even PR running races off of a treadmill. That's awesome, I'm happy for them. But we've also had a few people saying they feel exactly what I've been trying to point out. They're legs feel like shit come race day from long training on the mill. I've heard it from a lot of novice individuals. Its easy for the trained and superior individuals with long histories of running to ruin the curve. But the truth of the point is in the less trained individuals.

Theres also the arguments for cadence. People say they have a higher cadence on the mills. That's because you're not generating the same propulsive force with each step so you have to match foot turnover and most people find cadence outside of their norm as uncomfortable, probably another reason treadmill training seems harder.

In my 10 years of running. I have tried at least 50 treadmills.
100 % have told me I was running faster than I was. 0% have told me I was slower. Usually, significantly faster (even with 1% incline). Outside my Garmin does not always work right, there are hills, wind, heat.
Bottom line, if you want a margin of error of less than +/- 10 sec./mile, you need a track on a calm day.
How do I know?
I go to the track on a calm day.

I don't know how to state this any more simply than to just say, you're wrong.

You say you're not arguing the physics, but that's all there is to question here. And your understanding of it is wrong.

From the Runner's World article linked in this thread, What else can Kerrigan teach us about treadmill running? That the biomechanics, contrary to what many believe, are essentially the same as overground running. “We had to do a study on that [here] to convince the National Institutes of Health to fund some of our other work,” she told Runner’s World Newswire. “People have a bias against treadmill running--that real runners don’t do it, or that it changes your leg movements. It’s all garbage. We found some minor changes, but they weren’t the ones people expected, and they don’t affect anyone’s running biomechanics.”

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

I actually think it's far, far more likely that those individuals who find subpar performances on race day after coming of TM training, are basing their expectations from TMs that are calibrated in such a way that at 0% it might tell them they're running 10-30sec/mile faster than they really are.

As a counterpoint, I've taken to running all my TM miles at 3% incline. I like that it's noticeably harder than running on the road, such that a false flat (mild uphill like 2-3%) outdoors won't even faze me.

As a result of that 3% training, I'm always pleasantly surprised, if not borderline shocked at how fast I can run races. When you're used to putting out "X" effort for 7min/mile, and then on race day you put out "X" effort for 6:20min/mile, it's a good feeling - pretty much the reverse of what you're describing who probably head TMs that in effect did the opposite of what I'm doing with mine.

That's because you're not generating the same propulsive force with each step

No, just no.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

That study in runnersworld seemed pretty weak. It furthered my belief that nutrition, health and exercise science belong in the same category as homeopathy, acupuncture etc. (They may have some explanatory use when combined with common sense, knowledge and experience but should otherwise be viewed skeptically)..
Anyway I only care how fast I am running, when I am going faster than 7 min/miles. ( Something the article says no one does. Except most of the people in the debate here).
The study says that this IS where wind (or its absense) makes a big difference.

The study says that this IS where wind (or its absense) makes a big difference.

Yes, at faster speeds the lack of air resistance makes a difference and I stated that early in the thread.

But again, the physics of moving forward over a stationary ground are virtually identical to the physics of staying in place over a ground moving backwards beneath you.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

I've always assumed when you set the treadmill to 5 mph, you run with a 5 mph tail wind. When you set it to 10 mph, you run with a 10 mph tail wind. Is it more complicated than that?

You do realize that that article studies joint segment motion and ground reaction forces....none of which I'm arguing...? That article, along with many others aim to find relationship between kinematics of overground/treadmill running.

A study of EMG or force output of agonistic/antagonistic muscle groups bw OG or TM running are more appropriate in arguing for or against my point.

Again, if you didn't get it the first time. I'm saying glutes/hamstrings are working LESS (not completely shut down) on a treadmill. I am not saying anything about total joint excursion or peak ground reaction forces as your runner's world article exploits.

----

The physics may be the same but the real world applications are different..There is no way I could do the same workouts on the road or track that I can do on a treadmill.There is no way I could turn my legs over as fast on the track as on the treadmill during speedwork.The belt moving under me means I can use a "more tap and go" stride instead of having to use full force to push off..The ability to do that kind of "overspeedwork" is the most valuable of workouts in the gym..The slower the speeds the less I need that effect to help me.


---

???

Yes.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

Have you read the actual paper? The authors' self-identified study limitations alone make it next to useless. It's a very poorly designed protocol.

Not to mention, half of their subjects adopted a cadence 7-20 strides/minute higher on the treadmill than their over ground stride!!! They also found statistically significant bio-mechanical differences in even the runners who didn't change cadence/stride length.

Coupled with the dozen studies they cite that all found differences in gait while on a treadmill....there seems to be a scientific consensus that running on a treadmill is bio-mechanically different than running over ground. Why she's stating different to runner's world, I have no idea. But it's probably either shoddy reporting, or the author wanting to sound like she's "debunking" a "myth". It's a lot sexier than saying, "yep, we found out there are differences, just like everyone else did."

+1. The ONLY difference is lack of wind resistance. At higher speeds it will in fact change how much certain muscles are loaded.

The other difference is pacing. You don't choose the pace, the ground does.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Interesting idea.
Do you want to play around with that idea?

http://WWW.runworks.com
has a wind calculator

http://WWW.hillrunner.com/training/tmillchart.php
has a t-mill table

My experimentation with the calculators says no. But that could be that the calculators are a little wrong.

Physics are the real world!!!

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

----

Oh please,how about looking at the differences instead of assuming every situation is the same. You can keep believing that running on a treadmill is the same as the road and my legs will continue to enjoy the benefits of the differences.


---

quit being a pussy and run outside.. simple.

---

_________________________________________________

http://www.woodway.com/...rve_performance.html

People tend to see woodway as a gold standard for treadmills. I'm sure they have significant R&D into their products. Take a look at that link and note the talking points under increased muscle recruitment.

I don't understand what the marketing points of a unpowered mill with a curve deck has anything to do with this discussion

What I mean is running on a treadmill at 10 mph is basically the same as running 10 mph outside with a 10 mph tail wind (no wind resistance). At least that's how I've always thought about it.

But will the airplane take off?!?

---

speedySTATES

How about simplifying the picture so the physics is clearer. You are standing on a planet and you need to run at a speed that is equivalent to the speed of rotation of the planet. Would this be any easier than running the same speed on a planet that is not rotating? It would be the same. "It's all relative". :)

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

As KLehner stated, the idea of frame of reference indicates that these two situations ARE the same.

If you enjoy running outside, that's great. I'll put 70mpw on the treadmill to get through a Boston winter and not worry one bit about my spring race results.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

----

WTF?

If you bothered to read anything I write about treadmills you would know that I run on them more than outside so where does that little sarcastic post come from?

The frame of references may be the same but the ACTUAL affect on the body is very different allowing for different and/or harder workouts to be done for some folks.

----

This is EXACTLY why I do all my runs from west to east. Doing it from east to west is too easy since the surface is moving at about 1,000 mph. (Yes, I live at the equator.) Don't get that sweet glute workout heading towards the sunset. North/south runs are the worst 'cause I just go diagonally no matter how hard I try to stay straight.

this.. I find treadmill running much more tiring than actual runs, because I have to concentrate on not falling off ;-)
but not sure if that would show up on the respiration etc. metrics.

the exercise bikes at your average gym have large variations in calibration, would not expect the treadmills to be any different - so don't trust the pace measurements. For a home treadmill, could do your own checking,
http://www.topendsports.com/...mill-calibration.htm

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

Where did that come from?

How about in reply to this, "You can keep believing that running on a treadmill is the same as the road and my legs will continue to enjoy the benefits of the differences."

As if my "belief" was limiting me.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

But did you factor in that our galaxy is travelling at approximately 400km per second. If you did...great! If not, then you need to do your run again with that factored into your calculations because otherwise you might have been running backwards while faced forwards and may have run -719,994km in you 30 minute run. Basically negating more than all your runs you have done since you were born.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

I think running on a TM is slightly different. When winter sets in and TM running is a better option than running outside, initially I have lower leg soreness that I do not experience when running outside.

But here is the bottom line for me - Of course I would rather run outside, but it snowed here last night and all the roads, sidewalks and trails are covered with snow and ice. Later this week the temps are going to dip below zero Fahrenheit. I have an early half marathon I am trying to get ready for in early March. Tomorrow my speed workout will be on the TM and I suspect my tempo run on Thursday will be on the TM as well. My HR will get just as high on the TM during both workouts compared to outside. For the tempo run, when I do the main part of the workout, I am going to set the TM for my half marathon goal pace and run, for seven miles, without touching the damn speed control. That is hard. A tempo run outside is good, but the relentlessness of the TM pace is painful, and it is a hell of a workout that I believe will translate well outdoors.

Part of my whole discussion has been about how force on a powered treadmill's ground moving underneath you differs from the force to push off on stationary ground. So...yea. The concept is relevant, that it exists for a reason. And a gold standard company has acknowledged this idea to actually spend R&D on something to simulate actual OG running than a basic powered treadmill.

We need a phrase for all this crap science flying around. We can't use broscience because a true broscientist doesn't do cardio enough to care

Maybe twitchscience. Treadmill, suppliments, and gear threads are full of twitchscience

"Energy expenditure is greater on the non-motorized which may provide an additional training overload if the treadmill is consistently used as a training technique"

Case study out of UOW Human performance lab mentored by Ann Snyder PhD and CSCS. 9 runners/subjects were studied and VO2max, blood lactate, HR, RPE and muscle oxygenation were used to compare effort/energy expenditure on a motorized treadmill vs a non-motorized, human driven belt at various percentages and max workloads.

Greater energy demand and output as well as muscle oxygen uptake necessary to sustain same speed on a self-propelled surface than on a motorized one. Where did the greater demand come from?

http://www.woodway.com/...ing_Curve_Poster.pdf

I agree with you: The metabolic cost of running at the same speed on a treadmill versus over ground is nearly the same (Newtonian physics says it would have to be such), but as you say the force generators are different. I will add this: A convection fan should be used (not to compensate for the lack of relative wind) to improve cooling and keep HR similar to over ground running. One more thing: Treadmill users during winter months should be careful not to strain their hamstrings when they return to outdoor running.

And how does this compare to running over the ground? Its a duh that pushing a big friction laden belt is gonna cost more energy. We are not interested in how a non-motorized mill is more work but how a normal treadmill compares to over the ground running

Lots of treadmills are inaccurate based on belt wear, maintenance etc. I've been running on Woodways lately, which I am falling in love with. No belt, no slippage. Their self powered Curve is great too. I usually just do my warmup on it.

Thank you. This was the exact point I was trying to drive home but it never got that far. Prologed use of different muscle groups/firing patterns can lead to an imbalance and risk poor performance or as you said, injury.

And what do you think we are doing when we run on ground?? The non-motorized belt requires propulsion...it will not move otherwise. similar to how you will not move outside unless you proper and push off of the ground. The motorized treadmill does this work for you. really?

+1 on that. I run at 3% incline and the same effort HR wise nets me roughly a 1mph FASTER speed outdoors.

cheers
S.

---

// qui audet adipiscitur

I seriously hope Yeeper didn't major in science in school.

If you're going to reply to me, then make the statement to me. "Evidence" and "research" is thrown around on this forum all the time. I love the jab at my degree but Im not getting into a pissing match with you.

Good luck

Nope. The belt only offsets the friction caused by the belt rubbing aginst the low friction base it slides over. It simply maintains speed. The only forward force genrated outside vs. inside is to overcome wind drag. Otherwise, the primary power lost when running is hte equivalent of rolling resistance. You have to overcome the inefficiency of what amount to jumping and landing on 1 leg at a time. At higher running speeds, wind drag does become significant, that's why a slight incline is recommended as you increase in speed. But wind drag probably isnt't significant until your up to at least 8mph and becomes somewhat significant at maybe 10-15mph. Outdoors, you can have head winds. However, you will commonly also have tailwinds as well.

While i think it's common to think that you legs are driving you forward, in reality, it's more similar to a pedaling motion and you legs are driving you upward almost as much as forward, then you lose some energy on the inital footstrike, no matter how efficient your stride is.

I think you can best equate running to riding a bicycle up a hill on a wheel that's ovalized or if you have poor bio-mechanics, closer to a square.

To prove this. Try walking on the treadmill. At such a low effort and low speed, you'll find that your HR at the same pace is virtually identical as wind drag is no longer even a small factor.

As for belt speed, comparing with my Garmin footpod, which I feel is fairly accurate, I've found a pretty small variation. Maybe 3-5s per mile pace difference between the 5 or 6 teadmills I've tried. I see a much bigger variation that that outdoor based on traction, temperature, surface quality and wind.


Finally I think it's easy to forget the impact of even small changes in elevation and changes in pace when running outdoors. On a treadmill your pace and elevation and held constant. Outdoors they can vary widely. Those variations cause you overall training load ot increase the same way a VI of 1.01 or 1.03 will be a harder workout than a 1.00 with the same average power. All those little variations add up.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

You've been given too many good replies to your pseudoscience already.

You are failing to believe the obvious real world evidence that treadmill training does in fact translate extremely well to real world running. Elite athletes and even olympic gold medalists have proven this. It is a basic tenet in science that you cannot ignore the reality of the outcome, despite how 'interesting' your rational theories are for why it shouldn't work out that way.

Bottom line - you get faster on a TM, you WILL be faster outdoors. You can't compared the exact pace due to calibration issues and other things, but that doesn't negate the sole purpose the TM was made for- effective run training.

"But will the airplane take off?!?"


I was waiting for someone to bring this up! Using the airplane example might keep Ken's head from exploding.

---

Dan
***********
póg mo thóin

Too late. Ouch.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

As per his profile he is a physical therapist. So maybe it's good for his business to keep perpetuating this myth that it's more complicated than it seems as it helps him maintain the role of "knowledgable expert" in the eyes of his clients.

But it's really as simple as Klehner and others have stated, no need to overcomplicate things.

My favorite reply buried in this thread is "I'm not talking about physics, I'm talking about the real world."

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

The basic physics argument that (except for wind) TM should be pretty similar to real running seems pretty strong. I wonder though if somehow we can identify other mechanism that make TM running diffetent from real running. I do personally "feel" slightly different leg stresses from TM. I also feel different gaits perform differently from TM to outside.
I am aware that "feel" is not given good psuedo- science.

Have any of you run on weak or bad TM? Some of them will studder when your foot hits the ground and then speed up to readjust when your leg moves back and when you are airborne. There is definitely some elasticity in the band and perhaps in other parts of the TM. I wonder if even good TMs do this a little?
Certainly I have never felt the ground studder.

You still haven't read the paper you cited, have you?

It reminds of another good example:

Shoot and arrow at someone, and the distance to the target should half at some point. Then halve again. Then halve again. Wait, that means you wont ever get hit by the arrow based upon my rational thinking - go ahead, shoot!

Yes, I did. And I only cited it out of convenience since it was linked a few posts above. You were the one who declared the study useless, so I'm curious why you're citing it?

No two runs will ever be the same, wind speed, temperature, terrain, ground surface, etc. But all we're arguing here is that running on a treadmill is as similar to any other run as any two runs can be.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

While useless from an advancing the science perspective, you don't find it fascinating that half of their subjects changed their cadence by 10-20 strides/minute when they got on the treadmill?

And you don't find it fascinating that the researchers still concluded that running on the treadmill was the same as running over ground? Even though they found statistically significant differences in almost all of the bio-mechanics?

Do you think their conclusion had anything to do with that being the only conclusion that would get them more funding?

Side note- increasing cadence is probably a good thing. (Potential benefit of TM). Especially for slowish masters runners/joggers- my goodness some of them look like they are moving in slo-mo.

this old lady at the gym said treadmill running was only worth like 70% of outside running.
i think it's easier for the plane to take off when it goes into the headwind though.

---

---------------------------------------
Fruit snacks are for winners

I think the increased cadence is at least partly psychological. Runners don't want to run too far back on the treadmill for fear of flying off the back, so they run closer to the front, where if they overstride even a little they are kicking the footplate. To avoid this they shorten their stride and increase their cadence, this is probably a good thing.

Thanks for inaccurately quoting me. I in fact, said nothing in that quote. I said I wasn't arguing the physics, but instead I was concerned with particular muscle groups. And one thing I know about you, without looking at your profile, is that you're juvenile enough to take this thread to someone's profession and belittle them. I never once gave advice, we are all being tough guys arguing on an online forum. But I still know something about your character. One thing I do know about, however, is anatomical structure and function as it applies to motion. And that has been my argument, that different muscle groups may be stressed differently. Bottom line, if you want to perform better on the road, training on the road will always be best. If you say training on an incline helps you get faster? Then why not find some hills.

The fact that you have to change X,Y and Z on a treadmill to mimic the road or reap the benefits is testament to the fact that they are not the same. Even the research presented in this thread only suggests a broad and general similarity between the two.

My original claim was for an UNTRAINED individual training SOLELY on a treadmill. I just came from a run on a treadmill, I never, not once in this thread, said they were not useful and didn't have their place. They can be good tools.

Now I want to ask you, you Kona spot was on the line and you had ONE choice to train either treadmill or real road only, which would you choose? In this hypothetical you can't bounce back and forth, its all or nothing. Which are you going to choose? If the treadmill can be identical to the road then I assume your answer choice will be the tm. If you choose the road then maybe you actually agree with me that all of the tiny differences can add up and the precious Kona spot is not worth the chance.

What an idiotic hypothetical. Even if they were exactly the same physiologically they're not the same mentally -- running on a treadmill is far more boring than running outdoors, and I believe most people would choose outside solely for that reason.

See my reply above. I never said TMs were useless. I just ran on one this morning. My "pseudoscience" as you have put it actually has some scientific merit. And until you can provide me with a credible study of EMG analysis of lower extremity muscle groups on flat TM vs flat OG, you actually cannot entirely refute the idea I'm actually arguing in this thread.

So we're clear, I AGREE with you about using it as a tool to improve in many situations. Ok? Are we good here?

If the entire thread argument were for psychological factors then I agree. But the good thing about a hypothetical is you can keep all other things equal.

We sort of don't agree. All your arguments definitely imply (strongly) that TMs are so different than outdoor running that you have to be very wary of it causing muscular imbalance or question whether you should be using it at all as a legitimate tool for run training. That I totally disagree with.

I would be very confident in telling any runner/triathlete that if they wanted to do nearly all their run work on a TM, go ahead. Just make sure they don't expect the paces to line up exactly (calibration), and that it is helpful once in awhile to run outdoors, although one doesn't need to worry about the volume/time spend out there if you're doing good Tm work.

I'm sure there are a minority of people that get various issues on the TM, but it's certainly not enough to discourage folks from using a TM.

This study seems credible: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9839841

Thanks for the search.

Treadmills are often used in research to analyse kinematic and physiological variables. The success of transfering the results to overground running depends on the comparability of the values between the two situations. The aim of the present study was to compare the kinematics and muscle activities in overground and treadmill running. Ten male physical education students with experience in treadmill running were asked to run with a speed of 4.0 and 6.0 m/s both overground and on a Woodway treadmill. The 3D-kinematics of the limbs were studied using a two camera video tracking system. Additionally the surface EMG of six lower limb muscles and the pattern of ground contact of the right foot was registered. Both the activities of the leg muscles and several kinematic variables showed systematic changes from overground to treadmill running. On the treadmill the subjects favoured a type of running that provided them with a higher level of security. The swing amplitude of the leg, the vertical displacement and the variance in vertical and horizontal velocity were lower in treadmill running. The angle between shoe sole and ground at foot impact was also lower and the forward lean of the upper body was higher in running on the treadmill compared with the overground mode. Most of the subjects reduced their step length and increased stride frequency in treadmill running. Furthermore, the contact time in treadmill running was shorter than for overground running. The above mentioned kinematic variables were significantly different (p < 0.05). The EMG patterns of the leg muscles were generally similar between overground and treadmill modes, but some minor differences could consistently be identified.


So there are differences identified. I have not had the chance to read the entire article yet but I will. Curious as to muscles identified and at what part of the gait cycle they were measured. Abstract says ground contact but many of the other articles claimed GRF as well which is not what Im curious about. Thanks again pedalhead.

I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting Nick Mallet in post #94.

Although you two do seem to be in agreement on things, so it doesn't really matter much.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

With regards to your silly hypothetical, if my only goal was to get faster and enjoyment did not factor into things, I'd choose the treadmill over the road in a hearbeat.

I enjoy both, but I'm sure my fitness would suffer more if the treadmill was taken away from me than if the road was.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

Were these average runners? or well trained experienced runners? If so, both 4 and 6 m/s are a pretty good clip for an average runner. Probably close ot threshold pace for many even at 4 m/s and a near sprint at 6 m/s. Most treadmills don't go over 12mph.

What I find funny, is that what I'm reading, is that those in the study, used better mechanics/form on the treadmill than outside. Higher cadence, lower footstrike angle, less vertical movement. Interesting. I think this aligns with what some beleive, in that indoors is a good opportunity to work on form, and then take those adaptations and use them outdoors.

Either way, in the end, it's a pointless discussion, because few run a treadmill because you want to, you do it out of nessesity due to weather, schedules etc. I cna gurantee that my stride changes runing on slippery roads and my safety level changes when there's no shoulder. THsi winter for most parts of the country has been exceptional in the frequency and volume of snowfall and frequency of temps under 10F.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

----

and you didn't actually "quote" me ..The thing that cracks me up about these science arguments when people like yourself get all high and mighty is that you folks never actually want to know in what context we are talking about.You are so intent on "being right" that you don't stop for one second and actually try to think about what is being said.You and others don't want to actually admit that you are trying to apply your arguments to something that is totally different to what we are saying.This shit happens all the time on ST as the science gurus try to show how superior they are instead of actually having a conversation..After a while you all get together and totally change the threads from a discussion to some sort of group backslap and don't give a damn about what was actually said and the context in which it was said.

Typical ST..

--

Side by side slow mo video analysis of treadmill vs. "regular" running.

http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh

http://www.runnersworld.com/...admill-running-myths

“People have a bias against treadmill running--that real runners don’t do it, or that it changes your leg movements. It’s all garbage. We found some minor changes, but they weren’t the ones people expected, and they don’t affect anyone’s running biomechanics.

-----

I don't know why you posted that to me?

----

------

Again,taking one part of a discussion out of context without actually trying to find out exactly what I am talking about which is typical of people here who are just getting to the point of not even caring about what someone is saying but just wanting to slam them for "apparently" being wrong.

I was talking about overspeed work that I could not possible do on the road or the track because I can't turn my legs over that fast on the road or track.It is a description of a specific part of a workout but you don't care to accept that you just want to talk in generalizations and pretend that they apply to EVERY single possible type of workout.

Again typical ST..
--

Perhaps you should be more specific with your statements so you wouldn't get "slammed" by science, which you seem to have a problem with.

Nick on Nick crime here!

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

What is it that you can't do on the road or track that you can only do on a treadmill? What is the reason for this inability? Statements like that and your "tap and go" make some of us think you don't understand the physics of running on a treadmill.

Seriously, if there are some of us who are misunderstanding these statements, please explain them so we won't be typical ST.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

This is what you said, directly quoted "The physics may be the same but the real world applications are different"

Somehow trying to separate physics from the "real world". I didn't even go into your whole "tap and go" line of reasoning...

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

----

See that response is exactly what I am talking about,you have no intention of finding out what I was talking about but just want to give me shit for apparently not liking science.Did it occur to you that every person has some variables in the form of how their body reacts to training?Did it occur to you to consider that age,injury,fatigue play roles in whether treadmill running could be different,more effective or more beneficial for some people?Did it occur to anyone here that my "real world" comment was about that? No of course it didn't occur to anyone because some of you here here aren't concerned with finding out what people are actually talking about you are just hell bent on being right.

This is a great example of why pure science geeks do not always make for the best coaches because you fail to take into consideration one huge variable and that is the human one.


--

Considering I do coach athletes and that I have a doctorate, yes I've considered these factors much more in depth than you could imagine.

This is a great example of why pure science geeks do not always make for the best coaches because you fail to take into consideration one huge variable and that is the human one.

The reason science works is because we are all MUCH more similar than we are different.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

------

Sure,until we aren't especially if injury or age take their toll..One size fits all does not work in the real world which is my point.

I'll keep doing what I'm doing because it works for me and my specific needs and restrictions and you guys can keep blindly telling me that I am wrong.


---

I'm highly amused that those hiding behind the Banner of SCIENCE! are not only quoting a runners world article to support their claims, but also refuse to discuss the journal article upon which said quote is supposedly based.

As a reminder, that article found that half of their subjects adopted a cadence on the treadmill 10-20 strides/minute higher than on the ground. Which, as doug_steel pointed out, is in fact entirely what we expect. Do you think that cadence increase is a "minor change"?

Also, that journal article found statistically significant differences in 10 of 18 biomechanical measures even in the people whose cadence did not change (15 of 18 in those who adopted higher cadence).

So either Ms. Kerrigan has been terribly misquoted by runners world, or she's renouncing the findings of the article she co-authored. Or she's just trying to shill for her new shoe company now that she's left the hallowed halls of academia.

And since Mad Jee and lightheir have failed abysmally at this, I'll ask a third time: O humble wise one, could u in the graciousness of ur kind heart explain to us God-fearing uneducated rubes how this can all make sense?

Except for those of us who are trying to find out what you are talking about:

"What is it that you can't do on the road or track that you can only do on a treadmill? What is the reason for this inability? Statements like that and your "tap and go" make some of us think you don't understand the physics of running on a treadmill.
Seriously, if there are some of us who are misunderstanding these statements, please explain them so we won't be typical ST."

But if you'd rather argue than explain, please do ignore this second request.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

-----


I have already explained everything you need to know in the post you quoted and in a previous post where I said the "tap and go" was only during overspeed work where I can turn over my legs faster than I could ever do on the road..A recurring calf injury stops me from trying to do this on the road but on the T-mill it is possible if fact possible at a much higher speed than on the road...I'm sure you will come back and tell me that I am wrong just as I am sure you don't really care to find out my specifics.I am quite sure you are just fishing for an argument,so again I will say,I will keep doing what works for me given my physical restraints and my specific training goals and you can keep telling me that I am wrong.


---

I don't ask questions other than of a rhetorical nature unless I don't know the answer (unless I'm quizzing my ten year old daughter in math). If you believe that you've explained everything I need to know, then you are mistaken about that, since I have no idea why you can do something on the treadmill that you can't do on the road or the track.

Part of why I'm still here, and likely why others are, too, is to attempt to distill truth from misinformation for the benefit of others. You, apparently, are not interested in doing so, if your response above is any guide. "what works for me" without some kind of justification provides nothing to others. Maybe it does work for you and better than anything else. All you need to do is fill in the blank: "I can run at a higher cadence on the treadmill than on the road or track because the treadmill ______"

You seem sure of a lot of things that are just not so.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

---

I have actually explained it as it relates to what I am doing but you are not wanting to accept what I am saying.You are spoiling for an argument on the science and that is it.I am amazed that,with all your experience dealing with athletes,you can't relate at all to what I am talking about.I am actually sure you can and I am sure you do in fact know what I am talking about but you just want to argue for the sake of it.

----

As I said earlier, you've got to decide whether you think this is a valid study or not. Since the study found some differences, you seem to want to accept it as fact, but if you are doing so, you also have to accept this:
SIGNIFICANCE: Treadmill-based analysis of running mechanics can be generalized to overground running mechanics, provided the treadmill surface is sufficiently stiff and belt speed is adequately regulated.

So you accept that and I'll accept your change of cadence and a few other markers by saying what I said earlier, no two runs will ever be identical. I run at a faster cadence when doing trail runs than I do on a smooth road.

You don't get to keep a few differences the study found and ignore that overall findings of the study. Is the author a shill because the results of her study agree with me or is she a genius because a few differences were identified?

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about either!

Actually, I found this thread highly entertaining (and I've filmed/watched probably 500 people (from elite runners to barely walking cerebral palsy folks) on treadmills).

Just as entertaining as the Bill Nye the Science guy vs. the creation museum director one-on-one tonight!

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

.
----

So you don't get that I am saying t-mill running is less stressful on the body.You don't get that I can do workouts on the treadmill that would leave me either injured or too sore to back up for other workouts if I tried them on the road.You don't get that I can crank the t-mill up to a pace that requires me to turn the legs over faster than I could safely do on the road.You don't get that I can do longer workouts more often on a treadmill without worrying about my two knee surgeries or the ongoing battle with a calf injury.

I guess you guys want diagrams or something because every point I have made in this post was included in this thread,but clearly not spelled out the precise way you guys want it.


I am constantly amazed at the higher than thou attitude of the guru's here and am not at all surprised that so many people are afraid to post here because instead of constructive dialogue these "discussions" end up being pissing games..I often wonder why there is such a difference in the type of people here to the triathletes I meet in person.
---

No Nick - I understand your opinion, and I usually stay out of these interesting "debates".

Sure, many people are "afraid" of Slowtwitch for the reasons you outlined. But others embrace Slowtwitch for the same reasons where BS is called out and those that know how to read through the chafe and whom to "listen to" get learn quite a lot. Other feel good sites are fine for others (not me). Plenty of anecdotes like yours and they are great and are working well for you and your injured knee. I don't think Ken or others want you to change any training, only in the discussion of the physics of running on a treadmill vs. the road. I don't think it is anything personal.

I do really love your quote though from post #94 :The physics may be the same but the real world applications are different.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

----

Well for the out-of-the-box thinkers,that quote is true...I'm glad I could entertain your for a while.


---

Pretty much every study has found differences, and pretty much everyone knowledgeable about running knows there are differences simply from personal experience and watching others. So I'm not using this study support my observations.

But let's pretend that the data showing the differences are good (I don't believe they are, but since it's published in a high ranking journal, I know the militants will insist that the data are great. Okay, fine.) I argue that there's no reasonable way to get from the data analysis to the "significance" stated in the abstract (and I'm assuming you've read more than the abstract, but I'm not really convinced).

Especially because, in the discussion, the authors themselves state, "Overall, our hypothesis that the kinetics of instrumented treadmill and overground running are similar is not entirely supported." Which is in direct conflict with the statement in the abstract. In other words, they acknowledge their hypothesis is not supported, but then say that treadmill mechanics can be generalized to overground mechanics. Huh???

Also, note the qualifier in their statement: "...provided the treadmill surface is sufficiently stiff and belt speed is adequately regulated." This describes pretty much none of the home or gym machines that people actually run on.

And in your comparison to trail running--is your cadence on trails really 15-20 strikes/min. higher than on the road? If so, you're an extreme outlier. Also, would you say that trail running is the best workout for every situation? If not, can you also agree that the road (or the treadmill) might be better for some workouts than others?

No one here is saying the difference between treadmill/road is inherently bad. Simply that it's dead obvious that, for a lot of runners, there are easily observable and significant differences between the two. Smart runners, like Nick, have figured out how to use those differences to their advantage. Others go forth with blinders on, pretending that all is the same so they can secure their precious research grants.

 

"Well for the out-of-the-box thinkers,that quote is true...I'm glad I could entertain your for a while."

LOL. All of us fools stuck in the box constrained by physics while you're "out of the box".

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

----

You are not a fool but a dick who refuses to actually stop and think for a minute about what was actually said and clarified..I wouldn't expect any less from some people here.. I'll put you well and truly in the Troll grouping here and leave it at that.


---

Ok.

No one is debating your personal experiences, but generalizations work for a reason and when you make statements that contradict basic physical realities people will call you on it. That's how a board like this becomes a knowledge resource, because BS gets called out.

Label me a "troll" all you want, but I've been here for close to 10 years and make no attempt to hide who I am. KLehner has probably been here longer than that and rroof is not just a doctor who has helped many people on here he is one of the nicest and most popular guys on the board and they have the same disagreements with your statements as I do.

Now you've resorted to name calling, so I guess we've past the point of rational debate.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

I'm confused as well by those statements. They fly in the face of logic. Again, at higher speeds, it is harder outdoors due to wind drag... whis again, is why you need to add some incline to simulate that resistance.


I enjoyed my treadmill run this morning because I was able to workout while making calls on my cell phone without having to worry about traffic or pacing. It was a easy recovery run, so it wasn't hard to hold a conversation even with 1 arm. I'm in charge of snow removal at my work, so I had a few calls to make early this morning before I got to work.

So does talking on a cell hone and running with only 1 arm impact my stride. Should I be concerned? Should i use my right or left arm? How does it compare to carrying a bottle of water or taking a cup of water at an aide station? Can we do a study on that using a slow motion camera?

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Ding...ding...ding...we have a winner! Well, not really, but for this crowd it's close enough. For he's not trying to get more resistance--he's trying to eliminate it and work only on quick leg turnover with a long stride. The treadmill eliminates the wind drag and makes that easier to do.

It's very similar to doing striders on a slight downhill (1-2%)--running 100m faster than 5k pace, and then long recoveries so it's not a cardio challenge. It develops foot speed and lets you focus on good form. Not everyone has a great slope like that, so a treadmill can be a good substitute.