Gravy wrote:
Here's an experiment. Run at a specific pace outside and note your heartrate. Now run the exact same pace on a treadmill and note your heartrate. Not even in the same ballpark.
My heartrate was nearly the same. Definitely within the same ballpark. Maybe something is wrong with your experiment.
rojo wrote:
dsrunner wrote:
That the notion still persists, tells you much about the lack
of general knowledge within the sport.
We still have people using terms like running economy, steady state, tempo run and anaerobic. Some even say VO2max workout, without saying WTF just after.
Imagine telling Clarke in his prime that the US 5000 record
50 years hence would be close to 12:50 and held by someone who did absolutely no 100 miles weeks and never ever a two hour run.
Imagine telling Peter Snell in his prime that 800 running would be dominated by a Kenyan who trains less in a week than Snell does in a weekend. And this
same Kenyan would then decide to train more mileage and then get slower.
Or that many 800/1500 runners in the future would be as fast at the 800 with better stamina for the 1500 on just 60 miles/week.
Your joking right? Are you ripping Snell and Lydiard by saying high mileage is a waste. Do you not realize Snell would be a big factor right now if he were competing? He ran the equivalent of a 1:43 low. Do you think Snell would have been any good running 30 mpw like Rudisha?
In addition the tracks nowadays are significantly faster. Obvsiouly Rudisha or whoever else is running 140 low is a much bigger talent than Snell and also has more calculated training than these guys had in the 60-70s. A lot of running can make up for a lack of talent.
Gravy wrote:
Here's an experiment. Run at a specific pace outside and note your heartrate. Now run the exact same pace on a treadmill and note your heartrate. Not even in the same ballpark.
stop saying that running on a treadmill compensates for running on the roads.
supamondo wrote:
In addition the tracks nowadays are significantly faster. Obvsiouly Rudisha or whoever else is running 140 low is a much bigger talent than Snell and also has more calculated training than these guys had in the 60-70s. A lot of running can make up for a lack of talent.
More calculated training does not equal better training.
Agreed
1% on a treadmill vs outdoors on mostly flat terrain depending on weather/sun/ temperature factors can go either way. Right now it is tremendously easier to run outdoors at the indoor treadmill pace on 1-2% incline due the oppressive heat in the gym (so that those walking at 3.2 mph on the treadmill feel like they are working up a sweat and therefore hard--I imagine). The temp indoors should be at about 54* in the cardio room.
Gravy wrote:
Here's an experiment. Run at a specific pace outside and note your heartrate. Now run the exact same pace on a treadmill and note your heartrate. Not even in the same ballpark.
Heart rate is a pretty poor way to measure something like this.
BTW, the paper that the 1% incline comes from had the subjects running something right around a 7 min/mile pace. Yes, the faster you go the more air resistance (not wind resistance) makes a difference.
1% incline on a treadmill compensates for tge absence of wind resistance.
Cooptastic wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
If the treadmill is calibrated correctly then 1% does a fine job.
The well respected physiologist who was key in the Nike Sub2 project, Professor Andy Jones, demonstrated that setting the treadmill to a small incline causes the energy/oxygen demands for a given pace on the treadmill to be the same as running outdoors, when the pace is faster than ~7 minute/mile.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8887211Your 'experiment' involving yourself, your treadmill and your HR monitor really doesn't stack up as scientific evidence I'm afraid.
What’s never been very clear in the 1%=outside claim is what the “outside” conditions are. Is it the same as running on a totally flat surface like a track? I can assume you that virtually no one does their daily runs that way.
My daily runs are on undulation terrain on gravel paths. Does my normal pace there still equal 1% on an incline?
My other question is why did incline become the appropriate variable to change in order to make the efforts equal...why not pace? Why isn’t the conversion to run at x% faster pace, yet keep the incline at zero?
The fact is, the 1% rule is probably around because it’s simple. It probably equals conditions that almost never exist outside.
If you read the paper it's flat road running.
Obviously a 1% incline on the treadmill doesn't simulate running on your personal route of undulating hills outside...
It accurately reflects running for real on a flat road outside which many, many people do.
The OP has simply never seen that paper before and assumed the 1% rule was based on 'back of a napkin' calculations but like all good letsrun threads, posted before thinking/research.
Luke Humphrey's conclusion:
For easy runs across the pace spectrum, adding a grade will offset the lack of a self created headwind. A complete generalization would be 0.5% for 8:00 pace and slower, 1.0% for 6:30-7:30 pace, 1.5-2% for paces faster than 6:00 pace.
ex-runner wrote:
Gravy wrote:
Here's an experiment. Run at a specific pace outside and note your heartrate. Now run the exact same pace on a treadmill and note your heartrate. Not even in the same ballpark.
If the treadmill is calibrated correctly then 1% does a fine job.
The well respected physiologist who was key in the Nike Sub2 project, Professor Andy Jones, demonstrated that setting the treadmill to a small incline causes the energy/oxygen demands for a given pace on the treadmill to be the same as running outdoors, when the pace is faster than ~7 minute/mile.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8887211Your 'experiment' involving yourself, your treadmill and your HR monitor really doesn't stack up as scientific evidence I'm afraid.
Most anecdotal evidence for treadmills being harder or easier involves inside vs brutal winter(or summer) conditions outside. Or conversely, running in a hot gym vs decent weather outside.
I monitor my heart rate and find I need about 2% to approach the same HR as outdoors. There is more cardiac drift on the treadmill even with a fan. I may need to move the fan to get more cooling.
How come if I run what feels natural and easy outdoors I run 7 min pace. But, when I run what feels natural and easy on a treadmill it's 8 min pace? ?
Well he got right the point that at faster paces the difference is greater. It's not a constant. That makes sense with the exponential increase in wind resistance. Then of course you have temperature controls, treadmill calibration, etc. The nature of the moving belt also creates a difference. So we are mainly just talking about a lack of wind resistance, but there is a component of slightly less push-off force required. How much does the treadmill belt flex as well? Whether 1 or 1.5 or 2% incline causes an "equal" work output to flat road/track running outside will depend on relative pace, your running form, and the accuracy of the machine.
Ackley wrote:
https://hansonscoachingservices.com/treadmill-running-whats-grade-got-to-do-with-it/Luke Humphrey's conclusion:
For easy runs across the pace spectrum, adding a grade will offset the lack of a self created headwind. A complete generalization would be 0.5% for 8:00 pace and slower, 1.0% for 6:30-7:30 pace, 1.5-2% for paces faster than 6:00 pace.
Personally, running on a treadmill seems way harder than outside running. For this reason, I set the treadmill at my gym at a 2% decline, (downhill). Works great for me.
for me treadmill is easier for workouts for doing easy pace feels way harder on treadmill. 8:00/km on treadmill feels like 6:00/km outside but 3:20/km feels like 3:30/km.
Gravy wrote:
Here's an experiment. Run at a specific pace outside and note your heartrate. Now run the exact same pace on a treadmill and note your heartrate. Not even in the same ballpark.
I do a lot of running outside as well as on the treadmill, I have for years, and I use a power meter for both. Under similar conditions running outside and on the treadmill at 1% incline are incredibly close, as it my heart rate.
Don't be mad because all your PRs are on a treadmill at 0% while you were holding onto the side rails.
anyone who thinks their training is calculated sufficiently accurately that a 1% incline on a treadmill workout will make a difference to their performance, is probably deluded.
cheers
TarahumaraLight wrote:
Don't be mad because all your PRs are on a treadmill at 0% while you were holding onto the side rails.
My favorite treadmill workout is 5 miles at 5k pace.
Still in the game!!!
I live where it snows....ask me anything:)
I’ve compared heartrate and effort on many runs. I’ve spent winters almost exclusively on the treadmill and other winters where we have no snow...running outside mostly.
My findings are .....that it is wash. I think I get a slightly better workout on the treadmill. I tend to go a bit longer or harder on the treadmill. I do most of my running at 3-8% grade and go off a heartrate mainly I don’t pay to much attention to the speed or grade. I just adjust as needed to keep the effort approximate.
I do some of my repeats at 0% and some at 15%. If it feels to easy I go faster or steeper...if it feels to hard I back off a bit.
I have run a few marathons off of mainly treadmill and a few exclusively on the roads. My results are identical. Neither seems to help or hurt.
I do find I recover faster from the treadmill. My normal 10 mile run at 6:30-7 per mile is about an 8 minute mile at 6% . I run for 70 minutes and ignore distance on the treadmill.