Just curious. Did a “hills” workout on the TM yesterday and am wondering how this really applies to hills training in real life.
What angle?
Better than not doing any hills at all. Won’t replace trying to maintain same pace outdoors for obvious reasons, but it’s worth the time/effort.
Just remember there is a training benefit to going down the hill as well- if the course is hilly enough with a 0-net change elevation- you’re going to get additional fatigue from absorbing the downhill at race paces. So while you’ll increase ability for the way up, the muscular contractions going down can be a factor if the race is long enough.
The workout I did yesterday Sufferfest “The Machine” included:
set 1: 1min 2% 1min 4% 1min 6%
set 2: 1min 4% 1min 6% 1min 8%
set 3: 1min 6% 1min 7% 1min 8%
.
That sounds like a killer interval workout but I cant help but think of the the gym where I frequently see men and women of all ages on the treadmill with the incline maxed (~9%) while maintaining a death grip on the cross bar.
running uphill is effective for increasing running economy.
Yes it applies. You need somewhere between 1-1.5% incline on the treadmill to mimic normal motor patterns compared to running outside.
Factor that out and start adding inclines.
IMO the treadmill is a very effective tool for improving one’s running.
That sounds like a killer interval workout but I cant help but think of the the gym where I frequently see men and women of all ages on the treadmill with the incline maxed (~9%) while maintaining a death grip on the cross bar.
Understood…
It was The Sufferfest, so it wasn’t easy. The steepest incline was at 5K pace. Hard, but it’s only a minute, is what I tell myself. No touching the rails except for when the set was over and I was slowing down.
I only ask because… my normal outdoor route takes me up a steep hill about 5min into the run (no matter how I leave my house, the hill is there). While the treadmill workout was hard, it (of course) didn’t “feel” the same as my outdoor hill. I’m training for Alcatraz. That why I’m wondering.
running uphill is effective for increasing running economy.
Yes it applies. You need somewhere between 1-1.5% incline on the treadmill to mimic normal motor patterns compared to running outside.
Factor that out and start adding inclines.
IMO the treadmill is a very effective tool for improving one’s running.
That depends on if you run fast or not http://www.runnersworld.com/treadmills/biomechanics-expert-debunks-treadmill-running-myths
For me, the TM excels particularly in fast-paced interval training (it’s helpful to be able to get consistent pace differences down to 5sec/mile, harder to do that reliably on the track) as well as hill-interval climbs. Love my TM, despite the fact I run outside a lot as well.
Crank those hills on the TM to the occasional 9-12% for some interval hill work and you won’t be surprised by anything out there.
running uphill is effective for increasing running economy.
Yes it applies. You need somewhere between 1-1.5% incline on the treadmill to mimic normal motor patterns compared to running outside.
Factor that out and start adding inclines.
IMO the treadmill is a very effective tool for improving one’s running.
That depends on if you run fast or not http://www.runnersworld.com/...admill-running-myths
Wait, I’m confused.
In the article it says this: 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 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.”
But when I click that link that says “here” it takes me to the abstract which says this:
RESULTS: The features of the kinematic and kinetic trajectories of treadmill gait were similar to those of overground gait. Statistically significant differences in knee kinematics,the peak values of GRF, joint moment, and joint power trajectories were identified
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 how does she get statistically significant differences in kinematics and GRF at the knee = “essentially the same” in TM vs OG running?
Statistically significant is not a minor change. Am I missing something?
ETA: grammar
Hi,
From my understanding, when you run on an inclined treadmill, you are not raising your center of gravity. So although you are simulating the mechanics of “lifting your legs higher” than you would on level ground, you are not doing any of the work required to actually move your body up a hill.
Now that’s just plain false. If you maintain a normal running form you need to counteract the TM incline. I could maybe see your point being plausible if someone were running like a stork. If what you’re saying were true running on a TM with a high incline would be no more difficult than without. and that’s definitely not the case.
Confusion comes from RW doing what many mainstream news reports do- bastardize the study.
Their context in that statement is on the practical application of running/performance improvement. What you don’t know from the abstract is;
-
when they say instrumented treadmill, that is an insanely expensive TM ($80-140k for research grade) that has zero give to the running surface. You can’t take accurate force (kinetic) measurements on a treadmill that has give, like every commerical one that you would typically use.
-
There was a statistically significant difference, however it is minuscule because there are inherent differences when we run on any terrain, because it is a constant body adaptation that occurs with each step. The statistical difference is smaller than what you would see outside, but it is still there- so they did what all researchers should do, and reported it.
-
The researchers overall goal was “to present, for the first time, the combined kinematics and kinetics (including joint kinetics) of running on an instrumented treadmill and to compare this data to that while running overground.”
They hypothesized “that the kinematics and kinetics of instrumented treadmill running will be fundamentally similar to those of over ground running.” Traditionally, many decades ago force plates embedded in the ground were used, and had a host of inaccuracies (people aimed for the plate, not enough steps to get a trend, etc). When instrumented TM came onto the scene, it was difficult to get funding for it b/c the technology made some funding providers skeptical. Others here who do much more pure research than I do can probably testify that when you submit a research proposal and they ask "how does it compare to “x gold-standard,” previously there was not as much for kinetic treadmills.
Read: Fundamentally similar.
What DD said earlier is correct, b/c fundamentally, a treadmill will be similar for the kinematic measurements, and the kinetics in this situation aren’t worth it to get wrapped around the axle about.
Source: I’m looking at the full study here at my work desk.
Hi,
From my understanding, when you run on an inclined treadmill, you are not raising your center of gravity. So although you are simulating the mechanics of “lifting your legs higher” than you would on level ground, you are not doing any of the work required to actually move your body up a hill.
LOL. I’ll bet you’ve never, ever run on a treadmill, let alone with incline features.
Kerrigan et.al has produced research that concluded an incline of 1 to 1.5% is only needed to replicate outdoor running - if one is running faster than 7:09 mins per mile. Anything slower than this and the incline should be 0% to replicate outdoors.
I think there is great value in “hill running” on a treadmill but limit most of the session to around 4-5%. Hope this helps
Confusion comes from RW doing what many mainstream news reports do- bastardize the study.
**For sure, lots of trendy magazines follow suit. **
Their context in that statement is on the practical application of running/performance improvement. What you don’t know from the abstract is;
-
when they say instrumented treadmill, that is an insanely expensive TM ($80-140k for research grade) that has zero give to the running surface. You can’t take accurate force (kinetic) measurements on a treadmill that has give, like every commerical one that you would typically use.
**Understood. But to them I’d say if they’re trying to produce results that are pertinent to most runners then they should be using a treadmill that most runners would find themselves on. They do nothing to “debunk a myth” if the myth pertains to commercial treadmills but they prove there may be some difference in a treadmill most won’t ever see. ** -
There was a statistically significant difference, however it is minuscule because there are inherent differences when we run on any terrain, because it is a constant body adaptation that occurs with each step. The statistical difference is smaller than what you would see outside, but it is still there- so they did what all researchers should do, and reported it.
**I still don’t get it. Their goal was to prove there was no difference in kinetics or kinematics from TM to OG running…yet their study found statistically significant results for exactly that for a few variables. You can’t say we found statistically significant results, but blah blah blah. The fact that there are “inherent differences” from one terrain to the next only further strengthens the notion that, yes, treadmills are in fact yet another type of terrain that offer it’s own inherent differences to affect a runner’s gait. Agreed, they found it so they should have reported p, and they did. ** -
The researchers overall goal was “to present, for the first time, the combined kinematics and kinetics (including joint kinetics) of running on an instrumented treadmill and to compare this data to that while running overground.”
**I don’t believe they’re the first, I’ll have to check though to be certain. Don’t hold me to this. **
They hypothesized “that the kinematics and kinetics of instrumented treadmill running will be fundamentally similar to those of over ground running.” Traditionally, many decades ago force plates embedded in the ground were used, and had a host of inaccuracies (people aimed for the plate, not enough steps to get a trend, etc). When instrumented TM came onto the scene, it was difficult to get funding for it b/c the technology made some funding providers skeptical. Others here who do much more pure research than I do can probably testify that when you submit a research proposal and they ask "how does it compare to “x gold-standard,” previously there was not as much for kinetic treadmills.
Read: Fundamentally similar.
**I just don’t like that word when people compare body mechanics. There are so many different types of joint motion, muscle contraction, stability etc. I could tell you fundamentally bench press, DB stability ball press and standing cable press are fundamentally similar but trust me they have unique inherent differences that are significantly different. **
What DD said earlier is correct, b/c fundamentally, a treadmill will be similar for the kinematic measurements, and the kinetics in this situation aren’t worth it to get wrapped around the axle about.
Alone no, but put together in the “whole picture” and they sure are worth delving into much deeper. Think someone getting a quick interval run in once a week vs someone who does most of their running (interval plus long runs) on a treadmill most of the week. I’m going to link another article and thread in another post so this one doesn’t get so messy.
Source: I’m looking at the full study here at my work desk.
**Then you already have a better understanding than I, I’m going to look into it more. Thanks for the reply. **
I’m posting a follow up reply for the thread and article I mentioned.
Best part about research is theres always more to go through.
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=4961365;search_string=;#4961365
^^Thread from a year ago alluding to research showing gradual adaptations with prolonged TM use and how it compares to OG running.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/15301578_A_kinematic_comparison_of_overground_and_treadmill_running
^^Link to abstract and free article mentioned in the thread.
http://thegaitguys.tumblr.com/post/9252105802/the-truth-about-treadmills-a-neurological
^^Small write up from The Gait Guys reinforcing that TM does result in altered neuromuscular patterns in the lower extremities.
There was an entertaining thread about a year ago with lots of people on either side chiming in. I’m still of the mind that the TM does alter running mechanics enough to make note of it. I argued the difference in muscular recruitment and I was happy to see the above material and more of its kind.
So while some may show that “fundamentally” they are the same, there is enough difference to add up to significant changes.
dprocket, didn’t mean to go too much off topic. I know your question was regarding the incline and its correlation to hill workouts but I felt the other links were worth mentioning. Apologies if its a tangent.
Kerrigan et.al has produced research that concluded an incline of 1 to 1.5% is only needed to replicate outdoor running - if one is running faster than 7:09 mins per mile. Anything slower than this and the incline should be 0% to replicate outdoors.
I think there is great value in “hill running” on a treadmill but limit most of the session to around 4-5%. Hope this helps
Thanks for this, as I’ve often thought this was overstated. I rarely run treadmills, but typically do so at .5 incline and 7:30 or slower pace.
Best part about research is theres always more to go through.
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...rch_string=;#4961365
^^Thread from a year ago alluding to research showing gradual adaptations with prolonged TM use and how it compares to OG running.
http://www.researchgate.net/...nd_treadmill_running
^^Link to abstract and free article mentioned in the thread.
http://thegaitguys.tumblr.com/...mills-a-neurological
^^Small write up from The Gait Guys reinforcing that TM does result in altered neuromuscular patterns in the lower extremities.
There was an entertaining thread about a year ago with lots of people on either side chiming in. I’m still of the mind that the TM does alter running mechanics enough to make note of it. I argued the difference in muscular recruitment and I was happy to see the above material and more of its kind.
So while some may show that “fundamentally” they are the same, there is enough difference to add up to significant changes.
I think there are not differences if you only run on the treadmill from time to time. But if someone runs on the treadmill exclusively for long periods, subtle changes (like more vertical displacement that i discussed with Marcel in the other thread) can start creeping into the gait. Also at slow speed treadmill and outdoor running is more similar than different. At higher speeds, while the treadmill is going at constant speed relative to the body, outdoors at high speed there is an acceleration and deceleration phase on each stride that effectively connect the successive “bounds” that make up running at fast speed. If you put your treadmill at 12 mph, and then if you run 100m in 19 seconds, outdoors right after that, you will feel the difference. Having said that, most of us are rarely running on the treadmill that fast, but even at 10 mph, there is an acceleration and deceleration on each stride…it is not entirely a constant overland speed between the body and land, whereas on treadmill it is.