running speed

jaylu

i know that treadmills, cross-trainers, stationary bikes and such aren't very accurate when it comes to telling you how many calories you've burned for your workout but what is the thought on the speed that they display... do you you think it gives an accurate speed reading?

izobel

That is an interesting question! I run outdoors 99% of the time and I know the exact distance of my courses and therefore my speed. When I get on the (hated) treadmill I am 2 km/hour slower for the same level of exertion. That is a huge difference! If I run my gentle outdoor jogging pace on the treadmill it feels like a sprint. So with no scientific evidence at all I'd say the speed calculations are as inaccurate as the calorie burn.

sturtle

I got myself the Nike+ stuff, trainers in the sale and then £20 for the kit to go with my nano, its really accurate and shows how far you have gone, your pace and how many calories you have burned as you have to put in your weight etc, (it has a chip in the trainer that connects with ipod) if you are really into the accuracy I would recommend this and then are lots of fun things you can do online in Nike Running, currently conquered New York and now running around Paris! :-)

RogerDennis

Thats odd, because I find it the opposite affect - i'm slower. I use the iphone Nike application, which is calibrated to your actual running pace. So when I run on the treadmill I find it displays a slower pace, distance achieved and calories burnt than the Nike application. Which I am content with as I agree that treadmill calculations are mostly innacurate and consider the Nike info as much more reliable.

Azdak

Top commercial treadmills are calibrated before they leave the factory and they are controlled by computer boards/sensors that don't wear out. If one is on an older, lower-grade treadmill, there might be some issues with belt slippage affecting the accuracy of the speed gauge, but a treadmill made by a company like Life Fitness, for example, should be extremely accurate for the life of the treadmill.

The vast majority of the time, any perceived "difference" in speed will be due to the different sensations of running on a moving belt vs running on a fixed surface. Most people don't realize that, even at a "constant" running pace on the ground, we are constantly varying our pace by tiny amounts. On a treadmill, that doesn't happen--the pace is truly constant. Sometimes that makes it fell harder or "faster" if you are not used to it. Other variations are wind-resistance, form, and stride--all can change your perspective of how "fast" you are going. Often, the more time you spend on a treadmill, the less the differences appear.

At walking speeds, calories counts on treadmills are as accurate as anything out there--more accurate than heart rate monitors.That's because the treadmills are measuring actual workload--something the HRMs cannot do--and the equations that they use are simple to program and well-validated. At running speeds, treadmills start to overestimate calories, but they are still probably as accurate or more accurate than HRMs, for the same reason. It's just that HRMs tend to underestimate and the treadmills overestimate.

RogerDennis

Thanks Azdak. I'm interested to know what is your opinion of the Nike application mentioned before versus treadmill data?
Also, I have a treadmill at home and also use one at work, and tend to find that if I input the same running speed on either I end up with different results for distance and calories - depending on the distance I run it can be quite dramatic per mile. Admittedly my Life Fitness machine is only 6 months old and I cant verify the age of the one at work, and would definitely agree with yr comments on the difference between treadmill v fixed surface running.
I don't bother with HRM for caloriesat all, just to keep on eye on my heartbeat range to ensure I keep within my set tolerances.

jaylu

thanks everyone for replaying!

i asked because the weather is so bad here i can hardly ever run outside so i bought myself a really really expensive cross-trainer and its fantastic, i really love it and i can get up to a far faster speed when i'm on it - faster than i can run outside and i've got the resistance set pretty high too.

it tells me that i'm getting up to 9 mph - i am going like mad and breathing heavy and sweating an awful lot, its really hard work!! but when i enter 'running 9 mph' into mfp i get a huge calorie burn (even though its a few 100 under what the machine says i've burnt-but i know machines aren't accurate with calorie burn) its kind of too good to be true so that why im asking how accurate you guys think the speed reading on these things are because i don't want to over estimating what i'm burning! i really need to invest in a hrm to be honest but at the minute instead of logging '9 mph' into mfp i log '6 mph' but this also means that i might be under estimating my calorie burn!

Azdak

thanks everyone for replaying!

i asked because the weather is so bad here i can hardly ever run outside so i bought myself a really really expensive cross-trainer and its fantastic, i really love it and i can get up to a far faster speed when i'm on it - faster than i can run outside and i've got the resistance set pretty high too.

it tells me that i'm getting up to 9 mph - i am going like mad and breathing heavy and sweating an awful lot, its really hard work!! but when i enter 'running 9 mph' into mfp i get a huge calorie burn (even though its a few 100 under what the machine says i've burnt-but i know machines aren't accurate with calorie burn) its kind of too good to be true so that why im asking how accurate you guys think the speed reading on these things are because i don't want to over estimating what i'm burning! i really need to invest in a hrm to be honest but at the minute instead of logging '9 mph' into mfp i log '6 mph' but this also means that i might be under estimating my calorie burn!

Oooh--different question. But an easy answer--NO.

"Speeds" on cross trainers are only relevant and comparable to the cross trainer itself--they have no relationship to running speeds. Same with distance--they are just things to put more display stuff on the screen. The "mph" is a way of letting you know if you are maintaining a certain cadence--which may or may not be important to you (it can be useful to know that). I'm not sure why they use "mph" instead of, say, "rpms"--maybe they think people relate to it better.

Here's the problem with calorie counts on cross trainers--there is no standard movement, and so there is no standard formula that can be used for all machines. There are simple, established, well-validated formulas for estimating calorie burn on treadmills for walking (4.2 mph and under), walking at incline (4.2 mph and under) and running (horizontal or incline) at speeds greater than 5.0 mph. So most treadmills, if they ask for your weight, can be reasonably accurate (esp for walking, running overestimates by about 15%).

Not so with cross trainers. Every manufacturer uses their own formula. And they can base it on whatever criteria they want. Many of them just use the running formula--hence the big numbers you get on your machine. To be accurate, a company would have to do their own VO2 testing on each specific model of machine--and do enough subjects and enough of a cross section of subjects that they could develop their own equations. The only company I know of that does this type of validation testing is Life Fitness, and only on some of their top commercial cross trainers--the 95X models made after 2006-07 and the new Elevation series cross trainers. (The old CT9500HRR, current "classic" or 91X models and probably the home models use an older software that overestimates calories by at least 25%-35%.).

Azdak

Thanks Azdak. I'm interested to know what is your opinion of the Nike application mentioned before versus treadmill data?
Also, I have a treadmill at home and also use one at work, and tend to find that if I input the same running speed on either I end up with different results for distance and calories - depending on the distance I run it can be quite dramatic per mile. Admittedly my Life Fitness machine is only 6 months old and I cant verify the age of the one at work, and would definitely agree with yr comments on the difference between treadmill v fixed surface running.
I don't bother with HRM for caloriesat all, just to keep on eye on my heartbeat range to ensure I keep within my set tolerances.

I am not as familiar with the Nike technology (I know of it, but do not know all the technical details) so I can't really comment.

I am a little puzzled about your other treadmill comments. Any Life Fitness treadmills should be pretty consistent--the programming for calories is not that different and it hasn't changed much over the past 20 years. I have a T5.5 residential model in my basement that I purchased in 2008--It matches every commercial Life Fitness model I have ever tried--from the 93T to the TR9500 to the 95T "classic" to the new 95 Elevation models.

If you want to send me any addl details -- your model, the models of the ones that are different, how far off they are, etc--I would be happy to investigate further.

izobel

The vast majority of the time, any perceived "difference" in speed will be due to the different sensations of running on a moving belt vs running on a fixed surface. Most people don't realize that, even at a "constant" running pace on the ground, we are constantly varying our pace by tiny amounts. On a treadmill, that doesn't happen--the pace is truly constant. Sometimes that makes it fell harder or "faster" if you are not used to it. Other variations are wind-resistance, form, and stride--all can change your perspective of how "fast" you are going. Often, the more time you spend on a treadmill, the less the differences appear.

This absolutely applies to me!
Re the Nike. I do calibrate on a track and find it very accurate. Also the distances on Runkeeper, an iPod App, are very accurate for running and cycling and I love it for hiking although not sure how accurate the elevation stats are. Routes can be displayed in Google Maps.

Azdak

The vast majority of the time, any perceived "difference" in speed will be due to the different sensations of running on a moving belt vs running on a fixed surface. Most people don't realize that, even at a "constant" running pace on the ground, we are constantly varying our pace by tiny amounts. On a treadmill, that doesn't happen--the pace is truly constant. Sometimes that makes it fell harder or "faster" if you are not used to it. Other variations are wind-resistance, form, and stride--all can change your perspective of how "fast" you are going. Often, the more time you spend on a treadmill, the less the differences appear.

This absolutely applies to me!
Re the Nike. I do calibrate on a track and find it very accurate. Also the distances on Runkeeper, an iPod App, are very accurate for running and cycling and I love it for hiking although not sure how accurate the elevation stats are. Routes can be displayed in Google Maps.

I use some similar programs with my HTC Incredible and I get frustrated at the seeming random and excessive changes in elevation. Don't think elevation is a GPS strong point.

sturtle

in reply to adding the calories burnt on here I find they are normally way over on most of the exercise, I did circuit training last night and for 60 minutes it wanted to give me over 700 calories, but its probably ony 40 minutes of intense workout and then you have the warming up, cooling down, ab work etc, so I put in what I think its more appropriate and also dont eat into my exercise calories unless its a special occasion, thats where the nike + is good with running because it goes on your pace from the chip in your shoe and on your weight, height, age etc, I also found a good ap on my phone called sportpal, if you are able to walk or run outside it goes by gps and you enter all your weight height etc on there, I also use it for cycling and you can do other sports to, have used it alongside my nike+ and almost identical.