Kicker wrote:
Why 5%?
Another reason I'm using 5% is because that was the incline used in some of the Norwegian's scientific studies on the 4x4 workout. As I recall, In one of their particular scientific papers, I think they were also using the 90-95% MaxHR 'sweet-spot', rather than 85-95%.
sorry if this is lame wrote:
A footpad is going to be accurate with treadmill incline?
It will give you an accurate pace and distance, yes. Of course that is pace and distance on the treadmill, not outside. Incline is incline, just like outside. I would not attempt to equate incline with the flat; whilst it may be possible to attempt a conversion metabolically, the mechanics are different, and there is no guarantee that you will be able to actually be able to run on the flat at the metabolically predicted pace. As many others have written, I would definitely not use 5% as standard; personally I use 0% as standard.
You will be searching in vain for a conversion between treadmill and ordinary running that holds in general, there are myriad factors involved. As discussed, calibrating against yourself regularly is the only reliable way to do it. Of course, if you progress in your treadmill running, you can expect a progression in your ordinary running as well.
You have completely missed the point!
Nowhere did I try to say that 5% incline as a means of achieving equivalency. I have already repeatedly told the reader in this thread that up-to-this time, 0.5-2.0% incline is considered as 'equivalency'. My point is that in actuality, this accepted consensus may be totally out-of-wack (depending on....).
edit: *is a means of equivalency
a suggestion wrote:
personally I use 0% as standard.
Why did you choose, for example 0% as 'standard'?!?...is the point. Have you personally checked it metabolically?
Actually I don't think most experienced treadmill runners would consider 0.5% - 2% to be equivalent in any meaningful sense. At best, it is an attempt to compensate effort-wise for lack of wind resistance, but I and many others prefer simply to crank the speed up a bit and keep 0% incline.
As an extreme example of lack of equivalency, I can do a sub 4 minute mile 'metabolical equivalent' at say 20 km/h with sufficient incline, but I could never run a sub 4 minute mile on the track.
This all seems quite simple: view the treadmill as treadmill, and ordinary running as ordinary running. If you progress one, you'll almost certainly progress the other. Trying to go rigorously further than that will only lead to frustration. I.e. view the treadmill as extremely good cross-training; about as specific as one can get, but still not exactly the same as outside.
a suggestion wrote:
Actually I don't think most experienced treadmill runners would consider 0.5% - 2% to be equivalent in any meaningful sense. At best, it is an attempt to compensate effort-wise for lack of wind resistance, but I and many others prefer simply to crank the speed up a bit and keep 0% incline.
As an extreme example of lack of equivalency, I can do a sub 4 minute mile 'metabolical equivalent' at say 20 km/h with sufficient incline, but I could never run a sub 4 minute mile on the track.
This all seems quite simple: view the treadmill as treadmill, and ordinary running as ordinary running. If you progress one, you'll almost certainly progress the other. Trying to go rigorously further than that will only lead to frustration. I.e. view the treadmill as extremely good cross-training; about as specific as one can get, but still not exactly the same as outside.
That is all well-and-good.....so why is it still a topic of question, per the countless thread debates on treadmill 'equivalency'? Or the countless threads that pop up where someone claims a mile-time they just did on the treadmill, etc.?
No, in reality, the 0.5-2.0% consensus has not credibly been challenged up to this point-in-time.
a suggestion wrote:
As an extreme example of lack of equivalency, I can do a sub 4 minute mile 'metabolical equivalent' at say 20 km/h with sufficient incline, but I could never run a sub 4 minute mile on the track.
^This statement is meaningless. If by 'metabolical equivalency' we are talking about Heart Rate data (as I have been in this thread), then you are saying you can run on a treadmill incline to get a heart-rate that you would get if you could run a 4-min mile?!? Ridiculousness.
sorry if this is lame wrote:
Kicker wrote:
Why 5%? The general consensus is that 1-1.5% incline is pretty close to running outdoors.
Yes, and it would be significant if that generally accepted consensus is out-of-wack (assuming the treadmill is close to calibration.
I could see why if you wanted to be an ultra trail runner where there's lots of climbing, but if you're training for a flat course then I don't see the point.
Not sure why readers are so obtuse on this. I thought I already gave some reasons, like "less impact on joints" for a supposed 'same' effort (in terms of heart rate)...(but maybe that was another thread?).
You'll get better at running steep uphills and your leg strength will increase for sure, but that doesn't necessarily translate to running faster on flat ground.
You don't seem to put much credence in developing leg strength, for running? Hello?!?
I think it'd be better to run at speeds that are closer to what you'd actually run in races, unless you're specifically doing a hill workout.
You're not familiar with the old Frank Shorter quip that "Hills are spadework in disguise"?
Running slow at 5% isn't speedwork.
I would say there are countless debates because there is no way to resolve it precisely :-). But of course the treadmill with small incline is still close. If you already have the mechanical ability to run fast, then running with a small incline at a somewhat slower speed will be very close to what you can run outside. It depends on the person and the circumstances.
sorry if this is lame wrote:
a suggestion wrote:
As an extreme example of lack of equivalency, I can do a sub 4 minute mile 'metabolical equivalent' at say 20 km/h with sufficient incline, but I could never run a sub 4 minute mile on the track.
^This statement is meaningless. If by 'metabolical equivalency' we are talking about Heart Rate data (as I have been in this thread), then you are saying you can run on a treadmill incline to get a heart-rate that you would get if you could run a 4-min mile?!? Ridiculousness.
I mean that if you plug 20 km/h with sufficient incline into the first calculator you mentioned to get sub 4 minute mile pace equivalent, I can run that. I am aerobically strong, and quite muscular in the legs from cycling. I do not have the mechanics to run a sub 4 minute on the flat. There is a massive difference with regard to stride length, etc.
not what he meant wrote:
Running slow at 5% isn't speedwork.
Where did Shorter give the grade of the incline? If one is redlining on a hill, that is metabolic 'speedwork', which IS what he meant.
it is, what it is wrote:
not what he meant wrote:
Running slow at 5% isn't speedwork.
Where did Shorter give the grade of the incline? If one is redlining on a hill, that is metabolic 'speedwork', which IS what he meant.
It's not the grade, it's the effort level. An easy or steady run entirely at 5% incline is NOT speedwork.
it is, what it is wrote:
not what he meant wrote:
Running slow at 5% isn't speedwork.
Where did Shorter give the grade of the incline? If one is redlining on a hill, that is metabolic 'speedwork', which IS what he meant.
I already posted my heart-rate data indicating I'm not redlining. But the point still stands that one can do a form of 'speedwork' on an inclined treadmill, should they choose.
not what he meant wrote:
It's not the grade, it's the effort level. An easy or steady run entirely at 5% incline is NOT speedwork.
I never said it was, regardless of your misinterpretation.
a suggestion wrote:
I mean that if you plug 20 km/h with sufficient incline into the first calculator you mentioned to get sub 4 minute mile pace equivalent, I can run that.
Can you do it using the (more conservative) 'Treadmill conversion chart' at the hill runner.com site?
sorry if this is lame wrote:
sorry if this is lame wrote:
To add to the subject of this thread, I found a different treadmill "Pace Converter Chart", here:
The "Pace Converter Chart" attempts to take into account the lack of wind resistance on a treadmill, so it's conversions are not as optimistic as the "Treadmill Calculator".
For example, we can compare its conversion with the case I gave in the OP of this thread, as follows:
So the "Treadmill Calculator" predicts 8.6 miles/hr on the flat, which is 6:59/mile pace, whereas the "Pace Converter Chart" gives a lower conversion of 7:19/mile pace.
I want to update this thread with some information that I found to be somewhat shocking. I finally went to a track over the past few days, and it was a sobering experience. I was not in the condition I thought I was in based on my previous treadmill workouts. What I thought would be similarly paced efforts to my treadmill paces (whether inclined or not) turned out to be MUCH more taxing (based on both perceived exertion and heart rate) when run at the track. I'm not talking just a little bit of error. It was a considerable difference, that suggests both the treadmill calculator and the hilltop chart (which was evidently based on a Piftzinger reference) are way off, for even moderate paces (i.e., 6:30-8:00/mile).
With 50 plus years of running experience you should be able to run a workout purely on feel without any silly formulas. You seem to think all these formulas will help you, or prevent injuries, but that is clearly not happening. It's only adding to your confusion and making you unable to run on feel.
The other guy had great advice, don't compare treadmill workouts to outdoors. If you improve at one then you'll improve at both.
it is, what it is wrote:
not what he meant wrote:
It's not the grade, it's the effort level. An easy or steady run entirely at 5% incline is NOT speedwork.
I never said it was, regardless of your misinterpretation.
Why did you bring up Frank Shorter's quote? He asked why you do all your runs at 5% incline. You said because it's speedwork, which it is not.
Hardloper wrote:
The other guy had great advice, don't compare treadmill workouts to outdoors. If you improve at one then you'll improve at both.
Sure. But it is quite natural for treadmill runners to wonder how their efforts actually compare to the roads, which is why there has been considerable debate on the topic over the years, with attendant attempts at explaining incline equivalency.
it is, what it is wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
The other guy had great advice, don't compare treadmill workouts to outdoors. If you improve at one then you'll improve at both.
Sure. But it is quite natural for treadmill runners to wonder how their efforts actually compare to the roads, which is why there has been considerable debate on the topic over the years, with attendant attempts at explaining incline equivalency.
Once you run a few workouts in each you will know how one compares to the other. I even know how one treadmill in the gym will compare to another because they are all different. The inclines themselves vary, and most treadmills are already at 1% incline by default (when it says 0%), as I've measured with an inclinometer. There are too many variables that are impossible to account for in formulas so it's somewhat pointless to try. It is better to just run a few workouts each way and settle the debate for yourself.