I can't understand why nobody takes the tm suspension system into account. This giveth and taketh.
Giveth: You recover much better as you ain't pounding as hard.
Taketh: The suspension system robs some of your energy.
It ain't just the lack of wind resistance kids.
ooper wrote:
I can't understand why nobody takes the tm suspension system into account. This giveth and taketh.
Giveth: You recover much better as you ain't pounding as hard.
Taketh: The suspension system robs some of your energy.
It ain't just the lack of wind resistance kids.
Yeah that's why I said in my post earlier: "How much does the treadmill belt flex as well?"
Of course it is not just about wind resistance (although I will say that is the main factor)
JUST...
RUN...
BABY!!!
The cost of running on a treadmill is individual. A runner who runs 160 strides per minute will work much harder than a runner who runs 190 strides per minute. Why? Because the runner who has a lower stride frequency has more ground contact time and gets displaced further with each foot strike. The 1% incline is a rule of thumb. Much like maximum heart rate there is no one perfect formula as all people have individual variances.
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?
No but if he trained properly and ran 50-60 maybe he could have run 1:42:). Seriously there is no way to know how people would have done with different training or even small tweaks ( were 20 mile runs needed or would have a say 15 done the job). All we can say is the training load was enough for that individual to get the results the got.
Forget trying to figure out an equivalent pace and incline.
If you are going to do a lot of treadmill training, the most important thing to do is VARY your inclines and paces.
The other important factor to be aware of is you always know your pace. It is too easy to overtrain because you think you should be running a certain pace when you probably should be running a little slower.
Treadmill effort is effort wrote:
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.
Exactly. I can run more on treadmill than outdoors on asphalt or icy roads. There is something that hasn't been mentioned here what the incline does and that is potential problems in achilles tendon. Therefore I am putting incline only for hill workouts and not even touching the button when doing most of my runs. I don't care if it was a little bit easier or not.
Treadmill Tinker wrote:
I just set the incline at 0% and set an electric fan in front of me with a jury rigged rheostat so that it makes wind at the same speed I set on the treadmill.
Why were you messing with a treadmill in a court of law?
Ok I want a few people to run 6mph at 6% for 70 minutes....let me know how it feels...
You can drift up to 7mph.
This feels like a 10 miler at 6:45 pace to me...
6percenttessst wrote:
Ok I want a few people to run 6mph at 6% for 70 minutes....let me know how it feels...
You can drift up to 7mph.
This feels like a 10 miler at 6:45 pace to me...
Colby Mulders and Tom Cruise can do that easily...
Professor Andy Jones 1996 paper its basically very poor evidence to consider 1% setting as a must for treadmill runing, he merely had 9 runners , plus his methodoly and statistic analysis is very sketchy. Id consider his paper but not propose it as the truth per se.
Fitness cannot be improved by "running" on the treadmill. It's basically just standing and moving your feet up and down. Complete waste of time.
100% of effort in real running comes from fighting against air resistance. Which is why Kipchoge should be able to go under 1:40 in the next sub 2 challenge.
Can you explain the displacement part? I think you may be misunderstanding the physics here.
Many people think that the treadmill belt "pulls" your foot underneath you. This is incorrect. Running on a treadmill is the same as running down the length of a moving train. 4flat pace is 4flat pace regardless of how fast the train moves. If the train is moving at 4flat pace the opposite direction that you are running then you appear to stand still to someone on the platform outside the train but your are still running 4flat. Its a reference frames situation. Biggest example is your feet aren't pulled under you when running opposite the rotation of the earth.
If the train is enclosed and the air moves with the train you get no wind advantage as you are still running into the air mass. If the train is open and doesn't pull the air with it then you have no apparent wind.
One issue I can see is the treadmill drives slowing when your foot lands. If the treadmill cannot detect this then it will say you have covered more distance in a given amount of time than you actually have.
Also is it just generally assumed that a lower stride frequency = more ground contact? Couldn't the athlete apply more force in the given amount of time to have the same ground contact time?
imara wrote:
The cost of running on a treadmill is individual. A runner who runs 160 strides per minute will work much harder than a runner who runs 190 strides per minute. Why? Because the runner who has a lower stride frequency has more ground contact time and gets displaced further with each foot strike. The 1% incline is a rule of thumb. Much like maximum heart rate there is no one perfect formula as all people have individual variances.
Forgot to quote the post for my above question ^^^
imara wrote:
The cost of running on a treadmill is individual. A runner who runs 160 strides per minute will work much harder than a runner who runs 190 strides per minute. Why? Because the runner who has a lower stride frequency has more ground contact time and gets displaced further with each foot strike.
Lol.
imara wrote:
The cost of running on a treadmill is individual.
Very true. I opted for the $1400 model but I was really tempted to go with a slightly more expensive one that had a really nice built-in screen with Netflix integration. But I have an iPad so I just prop it up and slum it.
At his speed you must do something about air resistance but for 90% of us who run at 10 mph or slower air resistance is negligible treadmill vs outside running.
Plus you have examples of olympians training only on treadmills for a variety of reasons and still do PBs after
I've trained pretty interchangeably on treadmill and off in the past. Mostly at 1%. If anything, I'd say hitting the pace on treadmill feels harder (and this extends to pretty warm like 75-85 and humid days outside). Do typically feel better afterwards despite the perceived harder effort. Most of my runs are outside on a flat road or gently rolling hard-packed trail for reference.
Oh, and typically 7:00-8:00 pace on runs after a slowish first mile (7:45-8:15) for either.
But is running on a treadmill at a pace of say 8 min/mile at 0% incline the same as running outdoors on a flat surface at a pace of 8 min/mile with an 8 min/mile tailwind?