How do you all handle treadmill workouts?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

sorry if this is lame wrote:

How did you do a "decent 5k" if you were injured?

Wait a sec...weren't you the guy a while back that posted a lot (with attendant drama) around your big upcoming 5k effort, eventually claiming a 5k, but without any evidence to back it up (i.e., no actual race results to show, etc.)?

Disregard if I'm confusing you with somebody else.

Yes, that’s me.

Try to remember that the OP asked for users’ experience with treadmills. I tried to help by describing mine.

I was able to grind out that 5000m even though I had been injured. The run made it worse, but it was def the mill that caused it—even though I was running in literally broken shoes.

Well there you go! Maybe if you had had a 'gadget' (in 'the matrix') independent assessment of your daily HRV, it would have warned you to back off before injuring yourself!

However, it probably wouldn't have told you its time to change shoes, unless their mileage was also being tracked.

sorry if this is lame wrote:

zinger wrote:

Don’t get caught up in the gadgets and gizmos. Sure it’s cool to look at, but you can’t possibly expect those numbers to be accurate

I can only imagine it gets more and more accurate as the database grows from the continual acquisition of watch data from their millions of users, that then gets fed back into into tweaking the algorithms.

Millions of users' heart rate data fed into an algorithm will never tell you when you or Sprintgeezer's joints and ligaments are recovered

Hardloper wrote:

sorry if this is lame wrote:

I can only imagine it gets more and more accurate as the database grows from the continual acquisition of watch data from their millions of users, that then gets fed back into into tweaking the algorithms.

Millions of users' heart rate data fed into an algorithm will never tell you when you or Sprintgeezer's joints and ligaments are recovered

Well, someday it might. Simplistically, and inflamed tendon is going to add stress to the autonomous nervous system, and I imagine if they could get that user info along with the reams of HRV data, it will help them in making heads-or-tails of what the heart signals are implying:

To add to the subject of this thread, I found a different treadmill "Pace Converter Chart", here:https://www.hillrunner.com/calculators/treadmill-pace-conversions/ 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:

sorry if this is lame wrote:

... if I were to run an hour at 5% incline, at 7mph, I will in reality covered 7 miles with incline elevation, which is equivalent to covering 8.6 miles on a flat, per the calculator. So I could tell the Garmin I covered 8.6 miles (rather than 7 miles) in this example.

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.

In the longstanding debate as to how the effort of treadmill running compares with running outside, I fall into the camp that the treadmill is a 'little easier', but not for the reason of "less wind resistance", as mentioned in the last reference. Rather, I think it has something to do with reducing energy requirements through the gait cycle, but the amount of that reduction is not going to be consistent from one person to the next, because it is dependent on the individual's gait mechanics.

Whatever the reasons are for the pace differences between treadmill running versus running outside, over the years, one popular rule-of-thumb is that setting the treadmill incline to 1-2% is a decent approximation to equivalent effort of running at 0% gradient outside.

zinger wrote:

Don’t get caught up in the gadgets and gizmos. Sure it’s cool to look at, but you can’t possibly expect those numbers to be accurate

IDK about Garmin, but I do think that the mill I was on was improperly calibrated, making it seem slower than it was—and it is a newer commercial machine.

Cardiac rehab friend told me that some of the HR monitors actually work very well, they even use them on their patients.

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).

Let's start at square one. Can you show your work? I am skeptical that a correctly applied conversion formula would feel shockingly inaccurate.

be more specific wrote:

Let's start at square one. Can you show your work? I am skeptical that a correctly applied conversion formula would feel shockingly inaccurate.

Well, I haven't yet gone to the trouble of verifying the speed of my gym's treadmill, but I would be shocked if it was so out of wack (but I dunno).

My evidence is heart rate data. In order to understand when making a comparison, I'm of the opinion that efforts, particularly when working above 90% maximum heart rate, are not linear with heart rate, meaning the effort required goes up much faster than the rate of heart rate climb.

First, we look at recorded Heart Rate from today's 4x4 treadmill workout. The objective of the workout is to get the Heart Rate within the 90-95% MaxHR zone (shown bounded by dotted lines on the graph).

https://ibb.co/WsJPsX0

The treadmill parameters for the last of the four intervals were:

7.5mph (i.e., 8min/mile)

5% incline

Plugging the above values in the 'Treadmill Calculator' (referenced earlier in this thread) gives a converted pace of 9.2mph (i.e., 6:31min/mile).

The more conservative treadmill pace conversion using the chart at the hillrunner.com site gives 6:54min/mile.

(to be continued)

sorry if this is lame wrote:

Lately, most of my runs are on the treadmill. I typically keep the majority of the running at 5% Gradient, although I will adjust from time-to-time (for warmups/cooldown, etc.).

Why 5%? The general consensus is that 1-1.5% incline is pretty close to running outdoors. 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. 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. 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.

As far as calibrating the watch, I think the other metrics given by your watch (plus knowing your body) are already sufficient for measuring how you're reacting to the stresses of training. I know dedicated runners really want to look at everything to see how they can improve their training, but this doesn't seem like it will help you much. The Vo2max prediction from watches doesn't mean much -- get a lab to test it if you really care. Even then, it's not a great predictor of performance. Velocity at Vo2max is more relevant to runners, and you can just test that with a 6.5-7 min time trial (or 3km if you're on the faster end of the spectrum and you want an approximation).

First, stop using the treadmills pace/distance stats -- they will be wrong. Buy the footpod for your watch if you want accurate pace/distance from a treadmill.

sorry if this is lame wrote:

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).

You could turn this around and use it to calibrate the treadmill to yourself, which will be more accurate than any generic calculator. I.e. take the pace you ran on the track, and compare it to what you were running on the treadmill, and use that ratio to convert between the two.

Other than that, if you are looking for accurate data rather than a rough zone, then the footpod suggestion of the previous poster is the only way to go. They are not terribly expensive.

A footpad is going to be accurate with treadmill incline?

a suggestion wrote:

You could turn this around and use it to calibrate the treadmill to yourself, which will be more accurate than any generic calculator. I.e. take the pace you ran on the track, and compare it to what you were running on the treadmill, and use that ratio to convert between the two.

That is ultimately what I'm driving at. There have been countless threads over the years, debating whether the treadmill distance is equivalent to the flat ground, and how much it needs to be adjusted (using incline) to achieve some equivalency. But rarely (ever?) has someone actually compared (and presented) efforts based on heart rate between the two. And even more rare (if ever) has anyone presented conclusive evidence to show that the treadmill is not even close to the flat ground.

I was going to go back to the track to follow-up this thread with better comparative track results (than what I've gotten so far), but stormy weather has blown in.

Yes, and it would be significant if that generally accepted consensus is out-of-wack (assuming the treadmill is close to calibration.

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 don't seem to put much credence in developing leg strength, for running? Hello?!?

You're not familiar with the old Frank Shorter quip that "Hills are spadework in disguise"?

*speedwork

treadmill45 wrote:

First, stop using the treadmills pace/distance stats -- they will be wrong. Buy the footpod for your watch if you want accurate pace/distance from a treadmill.

If, in fact, there is considerable difference in effort (per heart rate measurements...assuming outside temps/humidity are comparable to the temps/humidity where the treadmill is located), a difference that is considerably out-of-line with the consensus 0.5-2% incline 'rule-of-thumb', then I don't think the footpod is going to give accurate pace/distance on the treadmill, because no one (I'm aware of) has previously raised the issue that their foot-pod distance measurements on the treadmill (after using the 0.5-2% incline correction) are deviating considerably from their expected flat-ground-based measurements.

treadmill45 wrote:

First, stop using the treadmills pace/distance stats -- they will be wrong.

You don not know if they will be wrong. You think the general consensus of using a 0.5-2.0% correction is going to be significantly wrong?!?