Treadmill vs. Roads

In an attempt to head of the inevitable (and wrong) suggestion that treadmills "help" you run and are therefore easier, and will burn less calories, I counter that it depends if your route outside is with the rotation of the earth or against it.

Seriously though, is it that much different? I am trying to drop a few, and it is getting really cold, so I was thinking I would do my morning runs on a treadmill, is it any different?

i've owned a tread for about12 years. i use it in the winter on bad storm days, on cold rainy nights, and introduced last year on the day after a 2 plus hour run. in all i use it less than 30 days per year. i usually run between 50-90 min on those runs.

there is no question you can get a good workout on a tread, increase speed, elevate the incline, and the heartrate will go up. in general however an hour run outside will leave you more fatigued than an hour on a tread. the workout is just harder because you are not being propelled a bit and the ground is harder. there is also the tedium factor. even with the tv, the tread can be boring.

all that said, it sounds like your primary purpose is to get back a degree of fitness. if that's the case, do whatever you need to do to redevelop the discipline of exercise in your routine. if the tread gets you there, go for it, you'll get outside again. the weight will stay of once you've reestablished that routine, so don't count calories today only. build this as a long term lifestyle. good luck.

BUUUUUUMP

Thanks, sorry, I bumped it at the same time you were responding I guess.

I hear the main difference is air resistance. The faster you run, the more this becomes a factor.

I used to think that because you don't have to push your body forward with every step as you do with normal running (your body is stationary, the tread moves), that you do not work as hard on a treadmill. I argued with someone about this for an hour and although I was never fully convinced by his crappy physics, I no longer make that argument.

Boston26 wrote:

the workout is just harder because you are not being propelled a bit...

Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case.

I love running on the treadmill but I try to mix it up as much as possible as far as running on different terrain (trails,road,track,grass,treadmill). I live in an area with alot of snow and cold weather and few available indoor tracks so I do all my tempo, interval, and reps on the treadmill in the winter and I race just as well. I keep my incline at 1.5 because I have heard that the incline should be at 1 or 2 to be equal to running outside. When it is real miserable out I have even done my long runs on it (2 hours) which can get boring but you usually just get in a zone after the 1st hour. I really think that I am able to keep up the same fitness level using it so it must be similiar calorie wise as well. Remember to put your incline up to 1-2%!!!

Jack Daniels' books have treadmill conversion charts that may be useful to you!

i second that

The thing with the incline is fine if you don't mind running uphill the entire way.

Just make sure you run your workout. One hour on the treadmill or one hour on the roads is a helluva lot better than one hour of nothin'...

wannabe. wrote:

Just make sure you run your workout. One hour on the treadmill or one hour on the roads is a helluva lot better than one hour of nothin'...

that is virtually the only thing i have ever read that i agree with which was posted on a treadmill thread.

In a related incident, when I got up to go to the bathroom on a plane, I was thrown into the wall at 600 mph.

It was unfortunate.

I know I know wrote:

I hear the main difference is air resistance. The faster you run, the more this becomes a factor.

I used to think that because you don't have to push your body forward with every step as you do with normal running (your body is stationary, the tread moves), that you do not work as hard on a treadmill. I argued with someone about this for an hour and although I was never fully convinced by his crappy physics, I no longer make that argument.

The main difference is, indeed, air resistance. Running outside you have to push through the air to get where you are going. On a treadmill you stay in the same spot, so you don't have to push through anything. The other person that mentioned raising the incline to 1-2% to roughly equate treadmill running to running on flat ground with normal air resistance is correct.

The not having to propel yourself forward argument is crap, however. You certainly do have to propel yourself forward on a treadmill. It's just that the belt is moving backwards so you end up always on the same spot relative to any other stationary objects in the room. But you certainly don't end up on the same spot on the belt of the treadmill. With every step you are propelling yourself forward relative to the belt of the treadmill.

Another reason that treadmill running can feel easier (apart from the negated air resistance) is that the environment is completely controlled. No wind, no extreme temperatures, no rain, no cars whizzing by you, no curbs to navigate, no cracks in the sidewalk, no pot holes, no fat ass ladies pushing strollers. That said, I'd rather run outside. Running on a treadmill is boring.

treadmill speeds and running forms are so inconsistent betweent the mills that anyone would try and form a correlation to treadmill readout and gradient versus road running speed is silly, slash, stupid.

Neither Jack Daniels nor Blaise Pascal should attempt to provide any "chart" to compare efforts.

If you are an athlete you will be able to determine pretty easily, and on your own, what kind of running effort you are putting forth.

Maybe Pascal could explain the more imporanat value of belief and faith versus the value of any silly mill-land comparitive.

KILGORE IS CLAPTON

out...

Mike, I think the assumed point about charts and equivalents is that the TM is calibrated. If it's not, then any equation or chart is be definition worthless.

mplatt wrote:

If you are an athlete you will be able to determine pretty easily, and on your own, what kind of running effort you are putting forth.

I agree with this and will add that I have always calibrated my own TMs, and after having done that, I find a very good correlation between my road effort/pace and my TM effort/pace using a 1% elevation at easy pace and a 1.5% at 5k race pace. About a week ago I hoped on a TM at the fitness center at work and after a few minutes I was positive the unit was running faster than the readout. I finished my workout and mentioned my suspicion to the TA at the front desk who then said, yep, it's fast and needs to calibrated.

We got socked with lake effect snow last night and through today. A total mess outside. 14 on the TM though with no slipping, sliding, or dodging snowplows! The TM certainly has its strong points.

Jim:

It does not matter if the mill is calibrated.

Different running styles react differently to a belt moving under their feet.

For instance, fast runners tend to be very efficient in their use of momentum. On a treadmill there is no momentum, as soon as your foot hits the belt it is sending you backwards a bit, these really punished certain runners.

I always end up arguing with the EP-bent crowd about this.

I have seen some very good runners struggle with 7:30 and 9:00 min pace on perfectly calibrated treadmills, these are guys and gals that never run that slow.

I know you like Jack, so do I, but I refuse to believe that his chart has any value or validity. It should not have been in his book, it's the kind of information that will create improper training in the inexpereinced and blind sheep crowd.

I've heard people make this claim, but I have seen no physical explanation for it nor have I found studies to corroborate it. At the extreme, the studies I have seen indicate a very minor biomechanical change. Having said that, my personal experience tells me that this is true only after the runner has gained their "treadmill legs" (like a sailor getting their "land legs"). The first time I ever ran on a treadmill I felt very ungainly and I was struggling with a slower pace. I suspect that this has to do with visual motion clues (i.e. the brain is confused by the lack of scenery change in spite of the physical effort). I suspect that this is a learned skill (i.e. mental vs. physical change) and some people have an easier time with it. I am not talking about the TM boredom factor here. I know that at the beginning of each winter I go through a short period of acclimating to the TM where I feel a little spastic. It may just boil down to a simple fear of falling off or slipping and hurting yourself that makes one tense up. From a purely physical standpoint, though, I see no reason why a runner who is comfortable (acclimated) on a TM should expend considerably more or less energy to maintain a specific pace compared to the roads (outside of the aforementioned wind resistance and cooling effects of moving air).

On a TM a runner has just as much momentum as s/he does while running over land. The question is: What is the runner's motion relative to? In this case, momentum is relative to the surface being run over. While it is true that a TM runner has no momentum relative to the floor the TM is sitting on, a runner has no momentum relative to the lead vehicle in a race either. A TM belt does not "send you backwards a bit" anymore than a road does. What you may be referring to is a momentary deceleration when the foot strikes the ground. The same thing happens whether you land on the belt or on the ground (assuming the TM has a reasonably powerful motor and no drive slippage, so the $499 special remains suspect).

As far as training and charts go, I think there is some merit to them for specific sorts of training (and for knowledgeable runners), but I think a runner would be crazy to assume that say, 7:00 pace at 10% incline is equivalent in all aspects to a flat 5:00 pace (or whatever), and swap workouts. That would be literally as sensible as replacing a 200 meter rep workout with a short steep hill workout. The biomechanics of running uphill are not identical to running flat but faster, even if the caloric expenditures per minute are identical.

I use TM charts (one by Martin & Coe and one by another researcher I forget at the moment) to give me a starting point for TM hill work. Outside, I find a hill I like and run up it by feel (e.g. "Does this feel like 5k effort?") I have no idea what my pace is nor do I care. On a TM I cannot make the sort of instant adjustments to effort that I can on a real hill, so I want to have at least a ballpark estimate of what the TM pace needs to be at a certain incline to elicit a certain effort. I'll know if it's proper once I start running and can adjust from there. (This is why I use two charts. My experience is that what feels right to me "splits the difference" between the two charts I use.)

I agree with your final sentence in that I would never hand a beginning runner a chart and point to a TM and say "have at it". I guess my bottom line is that a TM can be a very useful tool as long as the user understands it, and that a quality treadmill can replicate the mechanics of road running to a very high degree in TM acclimated runners. Anyway, that's what my knowledge of physics tells me and what my personal experience corroborates.

I did not say a treadmill is not a valuable substitute for running. Hell, I OWN ONE, and I like it.

The chart is valueless as is the readout on the TM.

Jack's book is a basics book, it does provide information valuable to all, But, if I were to develop a tool kit that would be utilized by largely the less experienced I would not include something(TM Conversion Chart) that is "most likely" to be misunderstood and misused.

If I wrote a book and the editors forced me to address Treadmills I would write to judge your own effort and adjust according to the goal of your workout. Do not depend on the often innacurate information provided by a machine and environment that is prone to many, many variables.

The conversion chart most times prpbably causes more harm than good, that's all.