MountainMaggie wrote: »

CarsonRuns wrote: »

MountainMaggie wrote: »

I also have this idea that being short plays a role. I think my feet are hitting the mill more frequently per revolution than for the average person, and that the pace and other stats might not even be accurate for me. I'd be curious to try a mill where you can account for stride length.

Sorry to disappoint you, but height isn't a factor here. There are elite runners from 5 feet tall to well over 6 feet tall and most will have a cadence, or turnover, that ranges between 175 and 185 steps per minute.

Perhaps height is not the issue, but stride length definitely plays a role. At my job, it is crucial that I know my pace for very specific distances, such as 15 meters, 30 meters, etc., over a mile or two at a time. As an example, for most of my coworkers a 30 meter pace is about 33-35 steps. For me it is 44. Huge difference. I am absolutely taking more steps to reach each mile and this is proven on a daily basis.

Let's say your cadence is 180, or 3 steps per second. If it takes you 10 minutes to run a mile, that's 600 seconds, which would mean you took 108,000 steps to complete the mile.

If a 7 foot tall runner has the same cadence and ran the mile in the same 10 minutes, then the 7 footer would have taken the same 108,000 steps.

Right?

So, the factor that matters, is not height, or stride length, but pace which translates to time. The faster you run the mile, the fewer steps you take. The byproduct of that is that you have a longer distance covered per stride, or stride length.

CarsonRuns wrote: »

MountainMaggie wrote: »

CarsonRuns wrote: »

MountainMaggie wrote: »

I also have this idea that being short plays a role. I think my feet are hitting the mill more frequently per revolution than for the average person, and that the pace and other stats might not even be accurate for me. I'd be curious to try a mill where you can account for stride length.

Sorry to disappoint you, but height isn't a factor here. There are elite runners from 5 feet tall to well over 6 feet tall and most will have a cadence, or turnover, that ranges between 175 and 185 steps per minute.

Perhaps height is not the issue, but stride length definitely plays a role. At my job, it is crucial that I know my pace for very specific distances, such as 15 meters, 30 meters, etc., over a mile or two at a time. As an example, for most of my coworkers a 30 meter pace is about 33-35 steps. For me it is 44. Huge difference. I am absolutely taking more steps to reach each mile and this is proven on a daily basis.

Let's say your cadence is 180, or 3 steps per second. If it takes you 10 minutes to run a mile, that's 600 seconds, which would mean you took 108,000 steps to complete the mile.

If a 7 foot tall runner has the same cadence and ran the mile in the same 10 minutes, then the 7 footer would have taken the same 108,000 steps.

Right?

So, the factor that matters, is not height, or stride length, but pace which translates to time. The faster you run the mile, the fewer steps you take. The byproduct of that is that you have a longer distance covered per stride, or stride length.

I see what you mean about pace being pace, but if a 7 foot runner with long legs has the same cadence but a longer stride length, he will go a longer distance (on the road anyway) than me with the same number of steps, essentially having a better pace. If your cover 3 feet with one step, and I cover a foot and a half with one step, and we have the same cadence, you're going to get there before me.

I walk very fast, frequently leaving people in my dust at work, but am, as a measurable and frequently measured fact, taking more steps per mile than my coworkers. It simply takes me more steps to cover 30 meters (or a mile).

As for the dreadmill, it could very well all be mental. I hate that thing.

SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »

TL;DR

http://www.hillrunner.com/jim2/id110.html

Good article. One interesting thing I take away though and the reason I raise the incline to 1.5 -2% is that the 'outdoors', at least for me, is never flat. I am going to try and get to the track this year but my usual runs are hilly and even the so-called flat areas have at least a 1% incline/decline.

I think running outside is easier as well. The stimulation, varied surfaces, and momentum makes the time fly.

I hate the treadmill, but after running on it for a few weeks, I went outside running quite a bit faster, so I did something right, lol.

Probably doing 5 miles on the treadmill tonight to avoid running in snow. Normally, I would be all about the snowy run, but I don't want t slip and fall before my half in two weeks

Training2BeFast wrote: »

I've been running on the treadmill all winter (343mi out of my 458mi total for 2015 were on the treadmill) and every time I run outside it feels SO MUCH EASIER! Reading all of your comments, I think I might be the odd one?

And I don't run with any incline on my treadmill either since apparently it doesn't make a difference if you are running slower that 6:00 min/mi...

I say keep doing what you are doing and maybe transition outside on a cutback week? Or alternate outside/treadmill until you feel comfortable outside?

Good luck!

^^^^This. My mileage isn't quite as high though.