Sarah Hall wrote:
You don't have to use your glutes as much to push off, and can instead focus on just pulling your legs back up. You use your hip flexors/hamstrings more.
And why, exactly, would you not have to push as much with your glutes as opposed to runnning outside?
Hardloper wrote:
Should be noted again wrote:I like that you are a loser who does not take accountability for your own actions. Do you come here often?
I do, and I am one of the consistently nicest people on this message board.
Nice? Well, that's good. Now if you can only get to the point of accepting full responsibility for your own actions you'd really have something good going!
Best of luck.
Well, technically you can just jump up and down on a treadmill instead of running.
I think some readers aren't even understanding the main claim here: that running on a treadmill (let's assume for the sake of argument that it's a "perfect treadmill" whose motor is not affected by your impact) is EXACTLY the same biomechanically as running on regular ground. The only difference is the lack of air movement. There is no slight difference due to the belt movement while your foot is planted, or anything like that. Those phenomena simply don't exist.
Think of a planet like Earth except with the entire surface covered by a substance that resembles treadmill belt. Engineers of the future have built a special covering that covers many square miles of the surface and is able to slide around the planet very smoothly. This covering is decorated with trees, buildings, roads, etc, so that it looks much like a suburban area on Earth. You are taken there for a run. The engineers cut out a twenty-foot long hole in their special cover, plonk you down on it, and tell you it's a treadmill. It looks like a treadmill, because the regular planet surface looks exactly like treadmill belt, so you believe them. They leave you there and tell you can press the button and start the treadmill will in exactly 60 seconds. You stand in the middle of it waiting.
Unbeknownst to you, the engineers have actually rigged their special surface covering to move along with you whenever you run. So you are actually standing on the true surface of the planet, and will be running along on it covering actual miles, but the covering will move along with you so that you will feel as if you are stationary. If you program the treadmill to go 9 miles per hour, what actually happens is that the covering moves along with you at 9 miles per hour, and if you slow it down to 6 mph, the covering slows down, etc. Basically, you are on a sort of negative or opposite of a treadmill.
What would you observe? Well, it would seem exactly like you were running on a treadmill. Whenever you ran, your surroundings would be stationary in relation to you - just like on a treadmill. If you stood still for a second but didn't adjust the controls to slow down the "treadmill", you would feel yourself sliding towards the back of the treadmill (which would actually mean the covering was coming to meet you - but you wouldn't be able to tell the difference). Luckily you get going again just in time, and get back to the middle of what you think is a treadmill belt.
What I'm getting at is, if this contraption was built just right, you would not be able to distinguish your experience from running on a treadmill. In fact, it would be better than a regular treadmill in the sense that you would actually have normal air movement since you were actually moving forward through the air. But other than that, no difference. But of course, the whole time you actually were running along the regular old planet surface, with normal running biomechanics - just like you do on a treadmill.
Gamera wrote:
I think some readers aren't even understanding the main claim here: that running on a treadmill (let's assume for the sake of argument that it's a "perfect treadmill" whose motor is not affected by your impact) is EXACTLY the same biomechanically as running on regular ground. The only difference is the lack of air movement. There is no slight difference due to the belt movement while your foot is planted, or anything like that. Those phenomena simply don't exist.
Think of a planet like Earth except with the entire surface covered by a substance that resembles treadmill belt. Engineers of the future have built a special covering that covers many square miles of the surface and is able to slide around the planet very smoothly. This covering is decorated with trees, buildings, roads, etc, so that it looks much like a suburban area on Earth. You are taken there for a run. The engineers cut out a twenty-foot long hole in their special cover, plonk you down on it, and tell you it's a treadmill. It looks like a treadmill, because the regular planet surface looks exactly like treadmill belt, so you believe them. They leave you there and tell you can press the button and start the treadmill will in exactly 60 seconds. You stand in the middle of it waiting.
Unbeknownst to you, the engineers have actually rigged their special surface covering to move along with you whenever you run. So you are actually standing on the true surface of the planet, and will be running along on it covering actual miles, but the covering will move along with you so that you will feel as if you are stationary. If you program the treadmill to go 9 miles per hour, what actually happens is that the covering moves along with you at 9 miles per hour, and if you slow it down to 6 mph, the covering slows down, etc. Basically, you are on a sort of negative or opposite of a treadmill.
What would you observe? Well, it would seem exactly like you were running on a treadmill. Whenever you ran, your surroundings would be stationary in relation to you - just like on a treadmill. If you stood still for a second but didn't adjust the controls to slow down the "treadmill", you would feel yourself sliding towards the back of the treadmill (which would actually mean the covering was coming to meet you - but you wouldn't be able to tell the difference). Luckily you get going again just in time, and get back to the middle of what you think is a treadmill belt.
What I'm getting at is, if this contraption was built just right, you would not be able to distinguish your experience from running on a treadmill. In fact, it would be better than a regular treadmill in the sense that you would actually have normal air movement since you were actually moving forward through the air. But other than that, no difference. But of course, the whole time you actually were running along the regular old planet surface, with normal running biomechanics - just like you do on a treadmill.
INCORRECT!
With a treadmill that size you would be getting so much energy injected into you as you run that you would gain hundreds of pounds every time you stepped onto it. On the other hand, it sounds like it would be so smart that you would probably gain even more IQ points.
Sign me up!
if the surface of the earth is moving at 465m a second, why, if i jump up in the air for one second, do i land in the same place?
cow wrote:
if the surface of the earth is moving at 465m a second, why, if i jump up in the air for one second, do i land in the same place?
really? really?
if you drop something from a moving car, does it land exactly where you let it go? or does it keep moving at the same speed as the car for just a moment before gravity and wind resistance drop it to the ground?
simple way to answer your inane question: because if you're standing on the earth, you are moving through space at the same speed as the earth
cow wrote:
if the surface of the earth is moving at 465m a second, why, if i jump up in the air for one second, do i land in the same place?
Ummm...ever heard of an optical illusion?
cow wrote:
if the surface of the earth is moving at 465m a second, why, if i jump up in the air for one second, do i land in the same place?
Because when you take off you are moving at exactly the same speed as the Earth, so whilst you're in the air you move the same amount as the ground below you.
One of the conceptual problems people apparently have is giving a particular frame of reference some kind of special status. It only makes sense to talk about moving relative to some frame of reference. In daily life we are seldom explicit about this and we implicitly mean movement (and speed) relative to a fixed point on the surface of the Earth near us.
The fact that a treadmill is moving relative to the Earth's surface of itself makes no difference to how hard it is to run at a particular speed relative to the treadmill.
The thing that does make a difference is that the air in the gym is moving relative to the treadmill at the same speed, and in the same direction as you are running. So it's like running outside with a tailwind at exactly the speed you're running.
Fysics Genius wrote:
INCORRECT!
With a treadmill that size you would be getting so much energy injected into you as you run that you would gain hundreds of pounds every time you stepped onto it. On the other hand, it sounds like it would be so smart that you would probably gain even more IQ points.
Sign me up!
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Another way to think of running on a treadmill is by comparing it to running on a train. If you hop on a train coming towards you at 8 mph, that is no different to hopping in a treadmill set to 8 mph. The only difference is the train is longer than a treadmill belt. But as you may have observed, when you are on a train moving at a constant speed, you can run around back and forth and it's the same as running on a terrestrial surface. You don't have any "weird" effects resulting from the fact that the train is moving. It doesn't work your hip flexors more than regular running, you can't just kind of hop along and cover ground faster than normal, etc. Same as when you are on an airplane and you walk back to the bathroom - your foot doesn't travel backwards at 400mph every time you plant it on the floor.
None of this matters. It is like saying swimming is not a good supplemental exercise as it doesn't utilize your legs in the same manner as running outdoors.
Your tempo runs on a treadmill should be based on some form of heart rate level and whether there is a head wind or not, you will improve your cardio system as well as the secondary benefits of endurance training such as increased mitochondria, ect., if you crank out some pseudo-miles in the basement. If you have to run faster on a mill to reach the same HR, so what?
Hardloper wrote:
Duh. wrote:What is comes down to for me is the fact that when you're running outside, you are propelling and accellerating the entire mass of your body. When you are running on a treadmill, your feet are being dragged backwards, and you aren't moving anywhere. You get more out of running outside.
Acceleration is the same on the treadmill and outdoors. If you don't believe me, calculate it. Acceleration is change in velocity. When you're running your evenly paced 10 minute miles outdoors, your only acceleration is a slight bounce and down as you would on a treadmill, and when you start/end your walk breaks.
...are you kidding me? You're right acceleration is change in velocity. As such, when you start and end on the exact same spot on the treadmill, you haven't displaced yourself and your velocity (if your want to get down to definitions) would be zero.. If I was running in a straight line outside, I would have. You aren't accelerating your whole mass, rather keeping yourself in a static position. The mass of a body has momentum as you know, and as such, doesn't want to move from it's position. It's easier for your mass to stay in the same spot on a treadmill than to move and accelerate a body a meter forward on solid ground.
jesus, yesterday i read this as "Jump up and down on a trampoline" and was so confused as to who would do that.
Duh. wrote:...are you kidding me? You're right acceleration is change in velocity. As such, when you start and end on the exact same spot on the treadmill, you haven't displaced yourself and your velocity (if your want to get down to definitions) would be zero.. If I was running in a straight line outside, I would have. You aren't accelerating your whole mass, rather keeping yourself in a static position. The mass of a body has momentum as you know, and as such, doesn't want to move from it's position. It's easier for your mass to stay in the same spot on a treadmill than to move and accelerate a body a meter forward on solid ground.
The frame of reference for your treadmill analysis is wrong. It should be the moving belt, not the scenery in the room.
webfoot wrote:
Duh. wrote:...are you kidding me? You're right acceleration is change in velocity. As such, when you start and end on the exact same spot on the treadmill, you haven't displaced yourself and your velocity (if your want to get down to definitions) would be zero.. If I was running in a straight line outside, I would have. You aren't accelerating your whole mass, rather keeping yourself in a static position. The mass of a body has momentum as you know, and as such, doesn't want to move from it's position. It's easier for your mass to stay in the same spot on a treadmill than to move and accelerate a body a meter forward on solid ground.The frame of reference for your treadmill analysis is wrong. It should be the moving belt, not the scenery in the room.
That's right. It's like the example I tried to give above with running on a train. If you are an observer and you see someone jump onto a train (just assume it's a hypothetical really long train that is basically just a flat platform moving along the tracks) going 8 mph and start running along the train at 8 mph, they will remain stationary from the point of view of you as an observer. If you viewed them only from the bottom of the feet up (ignoring the train), they would look exactly the same as someone running on a treadmill, i.e. a person running but remaining stationary with respect to their surrounding.
So, if you concede that when you run on a train that is going a steady constant speed, you run "normally" in a biomechanical sense (try it if you disagree), and you concede that a really long train coming towards you is basically the same as a really long treadmill belt, you must accept that you run "normally" on a treadmill.
Duh. wrote:...are you kidding me? You're right acceleration is change in velocity. As such, when you start and end on the exact same spot on the treadmill, you haven't displaced yourself and your velocity (if your want to get down to definitions) would be zero.. If I was running in a straight line outside, I would have. You aren't accelerating your whole mass, rather keeping yourself in a static position. The mass of a body has momentum as you know, and as such, doesn't want to move from it's position. It's easier for your mass to stay in the same spot on a treadmill than to move and accelerate a body a meter forward on solid ground.
You are completely misunderestimating the affect of leg speed velocity and foot speed acceleration in propeling the mass in a horizontal vector versus a vertical vector. Your theory would only work in a vacuum without gravity and is therefore invalid in practice.
botswana pete wrote:
None of this matters. It is like saying swimming is not a good supplemental exercise as it doesn't utilize your legs in the same manner as running outdoors.
Your tempo runs on a treadmill should be based on some form of heart rate level and whether there is a head wind or not, you will improve your cardio system as well as the secondary benefits of endurance training such as increased mitochondria, ect., if you crank out some pseudo-miles in the basement. If you have to run faster on a mill to reach the same HR, so what?
You know there is more to training than just HR zones, right?
Duh. wrote:
accelerate a body a meter forward on solid ground.
If you move a body a meter forward on solid ground with no change in velocity, there is no acceleration. This is the same as on a treadmill.
Duh. wrote:
...are you kidding me? You're right acceleration is change in velocity. As such, when you start and end on the exact same spot on the treadmill, you haven't displaced yourself and your velocity (if your want to get down to definitions) would be zero.. If I was running in a straight line outside, I would have. You aren't accelerating your whole mass, rather keeping yourself in a static position. The mass of a body has momentum as you know, and as such, doesn't want to move from it's position. It's easier for your mass to stay in the same spot on a treadmill than to move and accelerate a body a meter forward on solid ground.
"Duh.," in seventh grade they taught us Newton's laws and kids seemed to get it then, so if you're in seventh grade or beyond there's no reason you can't get it. If you're in sixth grade or below than I apologize in advance.
The same first law, which says an object at rest wants to stay at rest, also says an object in motion wants to stay in motion. On the treadmill it's at rest, on the road it's in motion, makes no difference. It's not accelerating in either case, just staying at the velocity it's at. If you don't believe me use the accelerometer in an iPhone to record your acceleration and observe what the two look like.
When you go for a run and end in the same place you started, you haven't displaced yourself either, so I'm going to assume you don't understand the connection between displacement and acceleration at all.
But, like I said earlier, if you're in sixth grade or below, I forgive you and excuse you for the time being - save this thread and come back to it later.
Hardloper wrote:"Duh.," in seventh grade they taught us Newton's laws and kids seemed to get it then, so if you're in seventh grade or beyond there's no reason you can't get it. If you're in sixth grade or below than I apologize in advance.
mean men like you are why my mother tells me not to come to this site