Question about Garmin data on the treadmill
lporter229
Posts: 4,907 Member
I have a question for the Garmin users (specifically the FR220) who use it on the treadmill. I don't use it often on the treadmill except to monitor my HR, but I would like to transfer my data accurately to Garmin Connect and Strava when I do. My experience with using the Garmin to track my pace and mileage is that it is waaay off. Like over 1 minute per mile off pace. I am not sure how it calculates my pace on the treadmill, but I am guessing it has to do with using my average cadence data. I think my cadence must be drastically different when I run on the treadmill than outdoors. To add to that, I usually only run speed work/intervals on the treadmill, so my pace is usually all over the place.
My question is: How accurate does your Garmin track your pace and distance on the treadmill? Are there certain settings that you have to apply in order to get the most accurate data? I typically just turn the GPS setting to Off and go. Any help is appreciated.
My question is: How accurate does your Garmin track your pace and distance on the treadmill? Are there certain settings that you have to apply in order to get the most accurate data? I typically just turn the GPS setting to Off and go. Any help is appreciated.
0
Replies
-
you have to set your stride. some people are close to the average but other people have short strides and need to make the adjustment. i believe it is on garmin connect1
-
I think the 220 has an has a built in accelerometer that measures stride length. My stride length changes for each type of run so setting a static number would give me really weird readings. I know when i run on a treadmill or the indoor track with my 225 where my gps can't connect i get distances that are sometimes about 10% too low to 5% too far. I ran 4 miles on a treadmill Tuesday for a easy recovery and the first mile was dead on, then i sped up about 15 seconds per mile and the watch data showed I actually slowed down. When the treadmill said 4.0 my watch read 3.86. I count the 4 and edit the miles in garmin connect.
A few weeks ago I did 14 on the track and the distance showed 14.2, other times that same track will show about .92 for the 6 lap mile. Again i'll just edit the distance on garmin connect and move on. If you find the magic bullet to fix it I'd love to hear about it.1 -
My 225 is usually within about 15-20 sec per mile based on the accelerometer data when I run on the treadmill. For me it is close between a 9:30-11:30 pace (today, it had me at 10:05 when I was set to a 10 Pace, but 10:35 when at a 10:54 pace), but way under estimates my speed during faster running (did a 6:40 mile a few days ago, measured it at 7:50). I also notice it becomes slightly less accurate (and underestimates times by 10-30 sec/mile) if I'm watching the TV in front of my treadmill as I probably bounce less to keep my head straight.
Given all the watch can go by is the arm movement accelerometer readings, I'm not sure it really can do much better unless you use a footpod.1 -
Thanks for the replies. Typically I am only doing speed work on the treadmill, so I guess that fits with what you all are saying. I will have to manually correct in Garmin Connect (now to figure out how to do that...).0
-
If you're on a PC there is a little pencil looking thing on the top right hand of the screen. That will allow you to edit the time, distance, etc. I wish you could edit the splits since i normally hit the lap counter when i get to a mile, but all it allows you to do is overall miles. Not sure if it's the same method on mobile phones but i'd bet it is.0
-
In consistent pace runs, it does ok. With speed work it is a mess. In the most recent case, I was doing pace intervals right in target range, it kept telling me I was slow. Like others, I take a picture of the treadmill face at the end of the session and edit it in strava, or Garmin.
The only a way to get a really reliable data on a treadmill is to use a ant+ footpod.0 -
Mine is drastically off. I've only done it a handful of times, but the last time I did, the treadmill had me at almost 6.5 miles by the time I got to 6.0 on my watch. It does it off cadence, but Garmin usually steals a few SPM because I run with a fairly rigid upper body (at least that's my excuse), so it's definitely not calculating correctly indoors if it's by cadence.0
-
I don't do treadmills, but I've used a Garmin 620 and 630 on an indoor track where I can't get GPS signal. The theory is that it takes the data from runs where I do have GPS and calculates a stride length, then uses that and cadence to get distance (and hence, pace) for indoor running including treadmills.
I've noticed that on the indoor 200m track, the distance measure is short when I'm running easy, and long when I'm running speed paces. I have typically run the workout by track distances, and lived with the different distance Garmin reports unless it's way, way off. For many of my workouts last winter, the short on easy and long on speed netted to something reasonable for the total evening.
I would think that using a footpod should make it more accurate, but a buddy who uses a footpod with a Garmin 610 reports the same bias of easy measuring short and fast measuring long. I expect his error should be smaller than mine, but we haven't compared hard numbers.
Doing this on a treadmill would add the uncertainty of how accurate the treadmill's distance measure is, on top of the Garmin accuracy issues when doing distance by cadence.0 -
That interesting @MobyCarp, because on my 6 lap mile indoor track my easy is always closer than my pace/speedwork. 9:45-10:00 is almost accurate, 8:30-9:00 pace is almost always short, by as much as .10. Wonder if the internals of the XT watches are better than the running only watches like the 220/225. I notice my stride rate is a little lower indoors vs outdoors as well.0
-
@5512bf - I speculate that the inaccuracy may have to do with running conditions. Most of the data Garmin has to work from with GPS is on asphalt with variable incline/decline. I expect there will be some difference in stride length between that and a soft flat track, but I have no idea what the bias should be. As I write this, it occurs to me that my faster paces outside (where Garmin would get its data) might be on downhill segments where gravity makes my stride longer, as compared to a more even stride length on a level track; but I really don't know either how significant that is or how sophisticated the algorithm Garmin uses for non-GPS running is.0
-
@MobyCarp I'd expect to have a longer stride length when doing speed work on a track than when just running outside. But I am a typical long-distance runner (was once told I sprinted like a marathon runner (in between fits of giggles from the coach)) so I have had to make a really big effort to try and increase my stride length when sprinting, rather than doing the short stride high cadence marathoner's shuffle. If you're anything like me, you maybe increase your speed primarily by increasing your cadence (which is reasonably efficient for long endurance races) and that's why it measures long?1
-
I purchased a footpod to use over the winter when I couldn't get outside. Thank goodness I only had to use it 4 or 5 times. I recall it was very accurate (based on the couple treadmills I used). I did run with it outside a few times first to calibrate it.0
-
Interesting discussion. I use the 220 and had no idea it could estimate distance from cadence until one hot day when I finished a run on the treadmill. I find it to be remarkably accurate considering what it's doing.
Your running cadence shouldn't change too much with pace. Your stride length should change. Obviously you can force it, but it you check, it's surprising how little difference there is fast vs slow.0 -
I agree with Vlad. I use both a Garmin 220 and the Nike+ phone app. They are very close in measuring both speed and distance outdoors and on the treadmill. The phone app tends to gain about .10 miles over a 5 mile distance. My issue is with the treadmill measurements. We have 4 of them at my small gym and if you set them all the same they will each go a different speed and measure a different distance.1
-
Vladimirnapkin wrote: »Your running cadence shouldn't change too much with pace. Your stride length should change. Obviously you can force it, but it you check, it's surprising how little difference there is fast vs slow.
I've read this so many times that I think it must be true for some runners; but it doesn't work for me. When I tried to vary my pace by stride length, it was an epic fail. When I simply vary my pace by time and look at the results, I see that both my stride length and cadence increase for faster paces. I need a longer distance of a faster pace to see the stride length on Garmin because it only produces an average for the run; but I can see the cadence jump up on the charts when I run speed intervals.
Long easy runs, my cadence will be in the upper 170s to low 180s. Threshold, it will push 200. Rep pace, it may go over 220. I have a very noticeable difference in cadence between an 8 minute mile, a 7 minute mile, and a 6 minute mile. But my average stride length is somewhere around 1.1 to 1.2 meters for an easy run, and it was over 1.4 meters for a PR 5K. For me, both the stride and cadence increase with increased speed.
Maybe my stride length doesn't increase as much as the Garmin software assumes, and that's why the cadence distance estimate is low for running easy and high for running speed intervals? *shrug* It's kind of moot till next winter when I'm doing intervals on an indoor track again.
0 -
Long easy runs, my cadence will be in the upper 170s to low 180s. Threshold, it will push 200. Rep pace, it may go over 220. I have a very noticeable difference in cadence between an 8 minute mile, a 7 minute mile, and a 6 minute mile. But my average stride length is somewhere around 1.1 to 1.2 meters for an easy run, and it was over 1.4 meters for a PR 5K. For me, both the stride and cadence increase with increased speed.
Holy cow! I can't imagine hitting a cadence of 220!0 -
This got me thinking.... I thought my cadence stayed the same but never really looked at it. So I pulled some stats from a recent 5k race and an 18 mile training run. Turns out my cadence is almost exactly the same for both even though my pace is over 2 minutes per mile faster for the 5k. My stride increased a little but I can't believe that would be enough to make me go 2+ minutes faster....
1 -
I also took a look at a few treadmill runs (with and without my footpod) and found my cadence remains with 2 steps of 180.0
-
That's pretty cool!0
-
@dewd2
That's more than a little increase in stride distance, It's about 25%. My stride rates vary like Moby, my easy pace stride is about 162-165, then my MP/HMP rate is closer to 172-174, and 5k is closer to 180. My stride distance increases some, but not by 25% probably closer to 8-10%. For me to hit 200 i'd need to be chased by a bear.1 -
My cadence stays the same at my full range of recovery/easy paces, but it gets faster when doing speed work and reps. If you think about it, it'd have to otherwise short people wouldn't be able to go that fast as there's a natural limit to how long our strides can get!1
-
Cadence issue is complex and there is so much bad advice out there- even Fitz says so: http://running.competitor.com/2013/09/training/study-changing-running-stride-does-more-harm-than-good_411360
-
Vladimirnapkin wrote: »
Long easy runs, my cadence will be in the upper 170s to low 180s. Threshold, it will push 200. Rep pace, it may go over 220. I have a very noticeable difference in cadence between an 8 minute mile, a 7 minute mile, and a 6 minute mile. But my average stride length is somewhere around 1.1 to 1.2 meters for an easy run, and it was over 1.4 meters for a PR 5K. For me, both the stride and cadence increase with increased speed.
Holy cow! I can't imagine hitting a cadence of 220!
Turns out I was mistaken. I went back and looked at three runs, recorded separately, on the same day:
Pre-race warmup: 2.78 miles, avg. cadence 172, max cadence 175, avg. stride length 1.22m (avg. 7:40 pace)
PR 5K race: 3.14 miles, avg. cadence 189, max cadence 202, avg. stride length 1.41m (avg. 6:05 pace)
post-race cooldown group run: 1.15 miles, avg. cadence 164, max cadence 172, avg. stride length 0.98m (avg. 9:59 pace)
So it doesn't vary as much as I thought, but both stride length and pace change while I change speeds. The pre-race warmup was most even, as a solo run to feel easy. Of course, in the race my concern was managing pace to finish well. On the cool down, I was managing pace to stay with a group of runners aged 60-70. I would have accelerated after the first half mile or so, but I wanted to honor their recovery pace.
I do see a max cadence of 256 for some interval work last week, but the chart looks like the fastest intervals still averaged in the low 200s.
All this is unconscious. Cadence and stride length are not things I pay much attention to while I'm running; my focus is frequently on pace, sometimes on various aspects of form including posture, foot strike, and follow through.1 -
runbabarun wrote: »Cadence issue is complex and there is so much bad advice out there- even Fitz says so: http://running.competitor.com/2013/09/training/study-changing-running-stride-does-more-harm-than-good_41136
I agree completely. I should state that my cadence was not forced. I just run this way naturally. I have these measurements only because my Garmin HRM measures it for me.1 -
My cadence stays the same at my full range of recovery/easy paces, but it gets faster when doing speed work and reps. If you think about it, it'd have to otherwise short people wouldn't be able to go that fast as there's a natural limit to how long our strides can get!
Another shortie here, and I find this to be true for me as well.0
