10K under 50 minutes... Please help (Read 324 times)

So far at least, nothing in this thread has been fact on either side, just opinion.  My statements are based upon empirical evidence from my own experiences and from those I coach, others have offered their opinions (even state them as facts) which are contrary to my observations.  Which is correct, I'll stand by my considerable observations; y'all are welcome to drink from whichever kool-aid cup you choose.

Holy crap! You actually coach runners? That is just so sad.

Oh, and empirical evidence is not that "from my own experience". That would be anecdotal. Empirical would be all that researchy stuff those researchers do, you know, when they have their subjects running on a treadmill.

I offered this stunning insight way back on page 3. Ergo, this thread is actually one giant treadmill.

 

<mindblown>

Then it's not a real thread.

I offered this stunning insight way back on page 3. Ergo, this thread is actually one giant treadmill.

 

<mindblown>

You did.   It is, but we're heading south...

I went thru this thread kind of fast, so I might of missed it. One important factor in comparing running on solid earth and a treadmill, at least in my experience, is angle of the treadmill. I've found that it is my impression that running on a treadmill at 0 degrees elevation is much like running slightly downhill, because as your foot lands on the pad it is brought backwards mostly by  the revolving belt -- which is sort of comparable to your body being propelled forward due to gravity while running downhill.

And the more you elevate the treadmill the more you must use your muscles (that propel you forward) to keep you from being propelled off the treadmill. This doesn't mean that you're not using muscles as your foot lands on a treadmill, they're just being used differently.

A little aside note about running downhill: As a cyclist I love going downhill and at first thought you'd think going downhill while running would be fun, but it's not; actually I find it easier to run uphill.

A couple reasons for this: 1) Your turnover rate (steps per minute) increases due to gravity. 2) While you're not using muscles to propel yourself, you are using them to brake your speed; combine that with a very fast turnover rate and you got one hell of a workout.

 

I hear this every time the treadmill debate comes up, and it is a load of crap.  If the treadmill was pulling your leg back, and your muscles were NOT doing the same work they did when you were running, the trunk of your body would NOT move from behind/over your leg to in front of your leg.  When you are on a treadmill, you are running with respect to your new ground, which is the treadmill belt.  You have momentum relative to the treadmill belt.  The treadmill belt is your new frame of reference.  (This is why if you were to stop the treadmill short, you'd fly through the front console) The only true difference with the treadmill is that you don't fight against air resistance, (which is quite small when you're running slower than 10 mph).

"I've found that it is my impression that running on a treadmill at 0 degrees elevation is much like running slightly downhill, because as your foot lands on the pad it is brought backwards mostly by  the revolving belt -- which is sort of comparable to your body being propelled forward due to gravity while running downhill."

The key words from my post that you quoted (pasted above) is slightly and mostly. In other words, yes you do use your propelling muscles somewhat while running at 0 degrees elevation, but not like running on flat earth. How much depends on the speed of the belt and the speed at which you're running; the more you slow down the more the belt is taking your foot backwards.

Isn't this why some advocate elevating the treadmill to a certain elevation to more accurately simulate running on solid ground?

All I know is that every time I run 28 miles on a treadmill, the Pats lose the Super Bowl to the Giants.

 

"I've found that it is my impression that running on a treadmill at 0 degrees elevation is much like running slightly downhill, because as your foot lands on the pad it is brought backwards mostly by  the revolving belt -- which is sort of comparable to your body being propelled forward due to gravity while running downhill."

 

 

The key words from my post that you quoted (pasted above) is slightly and mostly. In other words, yes you do use your propelling muscles somewhat while running at 0 degrees elevation, but not like running on flat earth. How much depends on the speed of the belt and the speed at which you're running; the more you slow down the more the belt is taking your foot backwards.

 

Isn't this why some advocate elevating the treadmill to a certain elevation to more accurately simulate running on solid ground?

You need to re-think the physics on this.  DaBurger has this correct.

If the belt is helping your foot back, you are not applying forward effort to maintain your body's position on the machine (or your vertical displacement) and you will be carried off the back (and your center of gravity sink).  Your foot is not brought backward by the belt as you move at say 8mph at constant speed relative to the belt any more than it is by the ground pulling it back at 8mph at constant speed relative to the ground when you are running on the ground.

As for the whole issue of incline to make it like running outside due to air resistance:

1)  Studies have shown that the contribution of air resistance is only significant at higher speeds (I forget the number, but it was something like 10mph) which may be significant for some of us but not for most people (who never run that fast).  So you could argue that you need to add 1-2% as speed increases to make up for this.  However this ignores related variables, like the fact that air movement provides a cooling effect that most treadmills lack....I've rarely encountered a treadmill where overheating was not much more of an issue than outdoors....so the net effect is neutral or perhaps even in favor of running outside inside. <--MTA

2)  Do you track the wind direction on all your runs so you can somehow compensate in your log for how much time you spend running with vs into the wind?  Do you calculate the affecting component when the wind hits you at an angle and wear an anemometer on your head?

3)  The variability in the accuracy of treadmill calibration is likely contributing more to any perceived or actual difference in running effort on a treadmill versus outside.  I've owned 3 treadmills and run on dozens more, and calibration is a huge issue.  Effort-wise my current machine is very, very close compared to effort to run a certain pace outside.  My first two machines gave somewhat inflated paces (that with one machine became very significant over 11mph, the error was not consistent across speeds).

Plus, also, wtf it's just running.

Begs the question.