STOP saying that 1% incline on a treadmill compensates for the absence of wind resistance.

ice-breaker wrote:

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?

The study that led to the 1% incline had the runners running around 7 min/mile pace IIRC. The slower you do the less air resistance makes an impact. No idea where 8 min/mile falls though.

Alas, this to me is splitting hairs on the training benefits. I would say you would be hard pressed to say that running with or without the incline is going to make one iota of difference in the training stimulus from the run.

Incline is pretty easy to measure and validate.

Also, belt speed is not hard to calculate and calibrate. In grad school it was one of my duties to calibrate the treadmills in our lab and fitness center. The lab was pretty easy (we had 3 and they were not used all that much--relative to the ones in the fitness center).

In the lab, we had a cheat sheet for each TM as they were all a little off (enough that it bugged the lab director) so if the speed read 7 min/mile the belt speed was 6:50 min/mile. I did this for a variety of speeds and had a card that gave the "conversion" or "equivalency". When we did studies, we used a device to get the actual treadmill speed with the runner on the treadmill. (Same in the lab I worked in later where we used the speed on the dashboard to get us in the ball park (it was actually pretty accurate).

100m wrote:

I personally suck on the treadmill compared with running outside.

Me too. I am significantly faster on real ground.

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.

If you think there is a lack of knowledge, you could consider updating said knowledge.

Heat is big wrote:

Correct. Treadmill will be WAY harder at zero incline if you're hot.

My treadmill is in my basement under radiant heat. I had 5 mile tempo workout that I knew I was going to do before going to sleep the night before (expected freezing rain and snow the next morning). I forgot to turn the heat down before going to sleep. Oops. Next morning my basement was almost 80 deg and my body is used to 10-30 for the winter.

My heart rate after three miles of the tempo workout was higher than my final rep max during a recent 5x1200 vo2 workout and climbing higher. The heat turned this normally comfortable workout into a race. I had to stop and take a couple of minutes to cool off and get my HR down before finishing. So yeah. Treadmill can be tougher.

Not really correct, it depends on distance, hydration, sweat mechanism, level of effort, etc.

For 20-60 mins I feel much more comfortable at 80+ degrees, and my HR ends up being lower, at the speeds at which I am running on the mill.

Agree. Energy needed to mount a particular incline will increase as body mass increases in a different manner than energy needed to go a certain amount faster will increase as body mass increases.

That is why I do my 5k treadmill stuff at a higher pace, with zero incline. The energy required to take 175-180 lbs up a hill for an hour is significantly greater than that required to take 130-135 lbs up that same hill.

Maybe a few hotel treadmills turned out to feel very hard at a given pace, but all the other treadmills I have run on in a large space with okay ventilation have allowed me to run much faster at 1% grade than I can do in a tempo. I have done nearly my 5k pr pace for 5 miles at 1% on numerous occasions. Maybe 2-3% is more accurate, other things being equal.

bcvbc wrote:

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.

Totally incorrect. Learn some physics.

I think for me it has to do with air quality and how efficient I am at processing it.

When I’m out of shape, my treadmill runs are 30s-60s slower than outdoor runs. When I’m in shape, they are closer to the same.

Do I get the same benefit by using a conventional toilet versus a toilet installed on the treadmill?

I'll say whatever I think I want to say. Gosh!

Sprintgeezer wrote:

bcvbc wrote:

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.

Totally incorrect. Learn some physics.

Riding a bicycle into a head wind is just as good or better than riding uphill.

emma peel wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Totally incorrect. Learn some physics.

Riding a bicycle into a head wind is just as good or better than riding uphill.

The llama is a quadruped.

I find harder to run on treadmill than outside

I always run flat on treadmill, 1% is for flat earthers who think you are just jumping on a moving belt

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Agree. Energy needed to mount a particular incline will increase as body mass increases in a different manner than energy needed to go a certain amount faster will increase as body mass increases.

That is why I do my 5k treadmill stuff at a higher pace, with zero incline. The energy required to take 175-180 lbs up a hill for an hour is significantly greater than that required to take 130-135 lbs up that same hill.

If you're suggesting that hills are comparatively harder for heavier runners, that's not correct, though it's a common misconception. It's true for cycling because in cycling your own mass is only relevant when you start climbing (or accelerating). In running, you have to overcome your own mass even on the flat. Power to weight ratio is directly proportional to speed, for all runners, at all inclines. Each runner has his own coefficient of economy, but that's relatively constant across speed and incline as well.

It is because “you have to overcome your own mass even on the flat” that running is also harder for heavier people on the flat.

It is not debatable that raising more mass the same distance requires more energy, stored as potential energy once the top of the climb is reached.

In the real world, that is. On the mill, it gets weird, because after an hour of 1% incline you finish at the same height at which you started...so you probably have to break the effort down into individual strides. It’s the same mechanism as after running for an hour at 6mph, you have translated exactly zero meters, and yet expended much energy to have done so.

It is precisely because you are lifting mass with each stride that an incline is more difficult than a flat, and why a steeper incline is harder than a shallower one, regardless of your body mass.

That’s pure common sense. It’s nearly impossible to explain because most of the folks on LRC are oblivious to that way of thinking.

Co-flounder, lol ?

On the flat your CoM rises and falls on each stride, the associated acceleration and deceleration requiring the production of force, which uses energy—and the more mass, the more energy expended on each stride.

Incline on a mill is the same as if you were to spring your CoM even higher than normal on each stride on a flat, something that would require a greater energy expenditure.

Co-flounder ?

My experience is that running at 1-1.5% is less likely to cause a strain than running at 0%, particularly if I am coming back from a layoff and everything isn't in tune.

And I haven't noticed that 1-1.5% is an issue for my achilles, although someone who has already has an achilles issue may have to be more aware.