Does Treadmill running count as mileage?

I completely agree. I too have found similar observations with regard to my TM running vs. overground running.

I think what is interesting to point out is that the major differences cited in the article I posted, are mainly due to the fact that the subject was heel striking.

The largest difference noted was that of the plantar flexion at heel strike. Thus, I would argue that heel strikers probably feel the most difference between TM and overground running.

As I stated earlier, I find that the TM actually improves turnover for me, as this article suggests, due to the fact I land on the balls of my feet no matter what speed I am running at.

In my opinion which means nothing. No. You're not covering miles of road, you're staying in one place. You could count it as time spent exercising aerobically or anaerobically but it's not doing miles. It's like the elliptical trainer, stationary bike, or just jumping rope. You're not progressing over a distance. When it's all said and done your still in the same place having never left and not covering any amount of distance.

Then there was the research about 20 years ago that compared TM running with overground running among a group of elite runners and stride rate was identical, ventilation rate identical and TM running cost 7.1% less energy than overground, and when running overground with a tail wind, identical to running speed then TM and overground running had exactly the same VO2 values.

another arguement entirely but,

Almost all the people I know of that claim they land on the balls of their feet do not. (I think there is some kind of romanticized connection between toe running and elite form)

Even reported toe runners like Geb do not land ball first.

It is a huge myth. Geb most likely lands on the outside of his foot in more of a midfoot plant, rotating in whilst his heel lands firmly stretching the achilles and then firing him off which such strenght that his foot nearly fully extends as he toes off. It happens so quickly that it looks like toe running.

And everybody's heel hits the ground at some point, even sprinters. (the exception is steep uphill running)

I understand what you are saying, and have seen it referenced many times. I guess what I mean by "toe" running is more mid-foot running. All I know is that what I initially feel the ground, it feels like the ball of my foot hitting first.

There is definitely a difference between what I'm describing and this:

http://users.wfu.edu/borojg2/Pictures/DIAangles.jpg

Jim:

You know who I am, you know I am not nuts, you may not know that I have been involved with the careers of dozens of athletes over the years.

I will not waste your time with a detail account of them all.

I'll keep this to 3 athletes, each with a calibrated treadmill.

The three athletes Won the men, women and master division at a race you and I enjoy.

All three of them love TM running, their is no burden associated with it and therefore no psychological issue with maintaining commitment to proper and conentrated form.

I have to train at 8min/mile on my treadmill, at zero incline as well, to reasonably stay at the same effort level and slightly elevated heartrate as I do on my outdoor runs which are almost never slower than 7min/mile pace on a certified course or track.

The woman, whom is a low 17 min runner runs at nearly 10min per mile on a routinely calibrated TM,

and the other guy, a near 4 flat miler runs about a min per mile slower as well. This has been noted on three often used but different treadmills.

I draw no other conclusion than to deal with the reality of their situations rather than pay homage to a chart.

And I know enough runners of equal caliber that report similar observations that I simply will never believe that TM charts have any value at all, unless you are one of the few that land neatly into that range.

My point is now, and had all along been, "that if you want to use a treadmill properly and to be successful at this sport you had better understand your body and efforts first before you utilize a VERY general set of rules."

The average male may be 5'8" and a size 10 shoe, but I don't suggest you buy your clothes all fit that size.

jeezus, I can type and spell, but apparently not at the same time. their SB there, etc. etc. etc.

Yep, I guessed this sort of thing was coming. There's always research that contradicts or refutes other research. All it does is keep people in the dark. What's really ludicrous is the number of people who say, "Runners today are too caught up in worthless laboratory research," yet when these same people are presented with a viewpoint counter to their own, they fire right back with, "Oh yeah? Then show me the studies that prove your case." Finally, when such research is actually presented, they retort with, "Yeah, well, that study was flawed. Here's the real research."

Newer treadmill models may change the data slightly owing to the efficiency of the belt and the type of support structure under the belt, so perhaps the stability issues with earlier models are being erased.

What can we say? If you'll read my initial statement, you'll see that I said, "There is a good chance your running economy at higher speeds will become worse if you do all your faster running on a treadmill." The "good chance" qualifier was not a cop-out; it means exactly what it says. If you want to spend the majority of your time running on a treadmill (including all of your race-pace or faster running) and believe your overland running performance (or economy) will improve as a direct result of using the mill, have at it. Good luck with all that, chief. There is a "good chance" your performance will suffer relative to what it might have been had you spent some time running at your target race pace overland. Is that a guarantee? No. If you are one of those rare runners whose stride mechanics are unaffected by treadmill running or who can actually improve some facets of your mechanics by virtue of a different angle of impact or reduced injury risk (or whatever), more power to you. But I'm not making a blind bet on it.

This bit is interesting since, although the study conflicts with the earlier one on the issues of stride rate and support time, it still shows that running overland is more costly. Why become ingrained in a neuromuscular pattern which results in less energy cost without spending a requisite amount of time performing the precise (more costly) activity you will perform in competition?

Long, easy runs during the off-season (as well as slow running to recover from fast efforts in season) will definitely help you become a better miler during the course of your career. But do you want to spend all your time jogging and ignore working at mile race pace? Of course not! Is running on grass easier on the legs than running on concrete? Almost certainly. But if you never ran on the road, don't you think the unfamiliar difference in energy transfer would cause some snowballing distress during a marathon race on concrete?

Occasionally running downhill strides can be helpful, but should you train only on courses that are entirely downhill, with no flat or uphill sections? No. If nothing else, you would get an inflated sense of your abilities and when it came time to race on a track or on a road course with uphill sections, you would be in trouble quickly. On the other hand, if you planned on a serious approach to the Boston Marathon, you would be wise to incorporate more long downhills than usual into your preparation, without sacrificing general racing fitness (and of course including some workouts involving uphills).

So if you happen to be a runner who transfers identical gait mechanics between the mill and overland without any transitional work (and you don't mind running in place for mile after mile), there probably isn't much need to ever hop off that belt until race time. But, as I said, there is a "good chance" your overland stride mechanics and running economy will be impaired if you spend too much time on the mill.

LnL wrote:

When it's all said and done your still in the same place having never left and not covering any amount of distance.

When I go outside for a run, I start at my front door. I move around for a while and feel really good about myself. But, then I notice that I'm at my front door again and haven't really gone anywhere. What have I been doing all that time if I didn't really end up going anywhere?

Specificity, dudes.

mplatt wrote:

Jim:

You know who I am, you know I am not nuts, you may not know that I have been involved with the careers of dozens of athletes over the years.

Wellll, I don't KNOW that you're not nuts, but I SUSPECT that you're not ;-)

In no way do I doubt what you claim. I know that you have the years of experience and talent to back it up. Further, I agree with this nugget:

My point is now, and had all along been, "that if you want to use a treadmill properly and to be successful at this sport you had better understand your body and efforts first before you utilize a VERY general set of rules."

The average male may be 5'8" and a size 10 shoe, but I don't suggest you buy your clothes all fit that size.

Like I said, if all humans repsonded identically to the same stimulus, we'd have precise formulas for training, racing, learning to the play piano, whatever. I accept your claim that some people need to alter their pace considerably on a TM. Do you accept that some people don't? It's that DIFFERENCE between people that I find interesting.

Here's a little anecdote. At work we have 4 TMs in our fitness center, all by the same manufacturer. A few weeks back I hopped on one that I don't normally use (not the best location) for a few easy miles during lunch. I usually start off pretty slow, around 9 min pace, and speed up to around 7 over the first half mile. I'm at 7 and it feels like I'm almost doing a tempo run. I stop the TM and restart it. Same thing. I hop on the TM next to it and suddenly everything seems fine even though the displays are identical. My conclusion: the first TM is out of cal. I tell the tech assistant and he says "Yes, it's out of cal and it's on the list of stuff to get fixed". My point here is not that TMs are sometimes out of cal, but that I had no problem noticing this. It was like night and day to me. I had no reason to suspect it being out of cal before running on it, so I have to conclude that my "internal calibration" is OK, that is, that I am NOT imagining that my efforts at identical TM and overground paces are in fact identical.

Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter. If someone can get a more effective workout on a TM than on the roads (due to weather, road conditions, etc.), then it seems logical to me to do so, even if the paces don't line up.

I should mention HILLS. To me, there's a difference between real hills and TM hills. I think it's entirely psychological for me though. When doing TM hills there's no "top of the hill" to focus on. Instead, the console jumps up into your face.

In the winter I like to do one minute hill repeats. I usually do my easy pace and then crank the TM up to 10-12%. One thing I have noticed is that if I bring it up to 14-15% it seems WAY harder than I would expect, compared to 10-12%. I imagine that once it gets that steep my form changes as I don't normally run terrain like that.

BarryP is the only in this thread that has made any sense. Posts after his are just pointless. I do think however that Zuzus petals are one of the best posters on here. Didnt you do a long post on spiders? irrelevant to running of course but interesting nevertheless.

Once again you describe the same feeling of effort difference on the TM vs. actual overground running that I experience.

ZuZu's Petals:

I am by no means advocating the use of TM as the sole way to run, but, as others have posted, it will not neccessarily lead to inferior results if that is the case.

I, like Jim, often do my second run of the day during lunch, or directly after work and prefer to use the TM in the workout room in my office building.

This is mainly due to the fact that it is more time efficient. I work in the downtown area of my city, so I only have the choice of concrete, after I run through four or five crosswalks to get to the concrete path.

On the other hand, right when my lunch hour starts I can go directly on to the TM and run uninterupted for a steady 35-40 minutes and still get a shower in and still eat my lunch. Many times this run is a tempo run and is always a progression run, and is more beneficial than stopping and going and pounding pavement.

On a side note, I run around 11-12 miles overground every morning before work and do my weekend running overground of course.

zzp wrote--

This bit is interesting since, although the study conflicts with the earlier one on the issues of stride rate and support time, it still shows that running overland is more costly. Why become ingrained in a neuromuscular pattern which results in less energy cost without spending a requisite amount of time performing the precise (more costly) activity you will perform in competition?

What you are saying is to agree with the people who say to add 1 or 2% to the TM to make the same TM speed equal to over-ground running.

Of course we could also get all involved in looking at heart rate information, which can often show that TM running produces a higher HR than over-ground running at the same speed (even without a grade on the treadmill). Of course that brings us to the argument about whether HR is anything worth even paying attention to. Does a runner try to train the heart or the total system and just let the heart do what it must to get the job done