Running Question

sbrandt37 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

sbrandt37 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

rugratz2015 wrote: »

You also need to note that running on a treadmill doesn't have the same impact on your feet and joints that road running does. it's quite a shock to the system when the road doesn't 'soften' the impact and you're literally pounding the pavement'.

If one is running with adequate form then the surface doesn't matter. Treadmills don't inherently absorb shock loading.

According to this article in the Houston Chronicle (http://livehealthy.chron.com/treadmill-shock-absorbent-8169.html):

Go to the source, not an opinion piece. The article significantly overstates the value.

You'll identify that significant contributors to impact loading are shoe design, and running form. In comparison the benefits of treadmill cf really world are negligible.

LOL. I did go to the source, and cited it within the Houston Chronicle quote. I'll summarize it for you: The science did not support your opinion.

But ... whatever. It doesn't have much to do with the OP's question and if there is a bigger waste of time than arguing on the Internet, I haven't yet found it.

I think we may have different views on what negligible means. I'm not sure if you're claiming to be the journalist that wrote that article, or whether you're suggesting that the article constitutes a source, rather than the study quoted?

Going back to the original point, where I'd suggest challenging your assertion is relevant... From the perspective of coaching a new runner, recognising that one can comfortably quote things to support ones opinion that misrepresent the realities.

For a race in the real world the originator needs to train outside. Whilst it's possible to develop CV capacity on a treadmill it doesn't replicate a race mechanically or environmentally. The other issue with a treadmill is the predictably of the movement increases risk of narrowly focused overuse injuries. If one follows the other advice upthread about artificially elevating the platform that can apply a disproportionate load to the Achilles, an element of the propulsion chain that can be vulnerable due to low blood supply.

Different surfaces have different training values. The monotonous foot strike on a treadmill is hugely inferior to fell running, for example. Any outdoor running, even on a hard surface like tarmac, is going to stimulate much more ankle strength through the variety of landing orientaions, elevation and descent. Personally I'd advocate getting onto the trail as by far the most challenging and stimulating running, but then that's the type of running I coach.

I will acknowledge that a study exists that suggests that impact loading in treadmills is lower than real world. My reason for challenging is that when one looks at the coaching side of things the importance of that isn't significant. There is a far higher contribution from running form, and to a lesser extent shoes.

I would also note that the contribution to effect also depends on distance/ duration. For a 5K runner the surface is a much lower component of risk factor than for an ultra runner. Proportionality is significant. Fwiw I do know a number of people who, for various reasons, have had to train predominantly on treadmills for marathons and beyond. Whilst tedious they did the job, but every one of those runners has identified that real world training adds far more richness to the training value.

chante_04 wrote: »

So, I'm training for a 5K that's happening on April 1st. I run on the treadmill 3x a week for 32 minutes which is 2.60 miles for me. I NEVER run outside. In January I signed up for a 5K run/walk that was scheduled for today ( February 25). I figured since I be killing it with no issues on the treadmill for 32 minutes I could do the same outside. I WAS WRONG. I noticed the difference almost immediately after taking off. The pavement kicked my butt. I could only run for 17 minutes straight before tiring out. I felt kind of let down. Should I start running outside more and how often?

Once you start running on the street and get used to it, you won't want to go back to a treadmill. It's a totally different feel. Outside, you are propelling yourself forward. On a TM, you are avoiding being thrown from the machine.

When running outside, one thing I would recommend is that you make sure your feet land directly below your hips. If your feet hit the pavement in front of your body, it's called overstriding and you'll get knee pain.

I've only used a treadmill a few times over the past year, and it's just been when traveling. I run in the heat, the cold and the rain. No snow where I'm at but I did run in it in Chicago in December. Lol!

Happy running!

Totally agree with most of the responses, train outside some or a lot. If not set that treadmill incline up. I did road work before I started TM running and when I got on the TM I felt like the Flash⚡️. They are 2 different worlds, get that rd work in, you'll love it trust me

Practice makes perfect. You want to train under conditions as similar to the ones you will be racing in as possible.

sbrandt37 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

sbrandt37 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

sbrandt37 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

rugratz2015 wrote: »

You also need to note that running on a treadmill doesn't have the same impact on your feet and joints that road running does. it's quite a shock to the system when the road doesn't 'soften' the impact and you're literally pounding the pavement'.

If one is running with adequate form then the surface doesn't matter. Treadmills don't inherently absorb shock loading.

According to this article in the Houston Chronicle (http://livehealthy.chron.com/treadmill-shock-absorbent-8169.html):

Go to the source, not an opinion piece. The article significantly overstates the value.

You'll identify that significant contributors to impact loading are shoe design, and running form. In comparison the benefits of treadmill cf really world are negligible.

LOL. I did go to the source, and cited it within the Houston Chronicle quote. I'll summarize it for you: The science did not support your opinion.

But ... whatever. It doesn't have much to do with the OP's question and if there is a bigger waste of time than arguing on the Internet, I haven't yet found it.

I think we may have different views on what negligible means. I'm not sure if you're claiming to be the journalist that wrote that article, or whether you're suggesting that the article constitutes a source, rather than the study quoted?

Going back to the original point, where I'd suggest challenging your assertion is relevant... From the perspective of coaching a new runner, recognising that one can comfortably quote things to support ones opinion that misrepresent the realities.

For a race in the real world the originator needs to train outside. Whilst it's possible to develop CV capacity on a treadmill it doesn't replicate a race mechanically or environmentally. The other issue with a treadmill is the predictably of the movement increases risk of narrowly focused overuse injuries. If one follows the other advice upthread about artificially elevating the platform that can apply a disproportionate load to the Achilles, an element of the propulsion chain that can be vulnerable due to low blood supply.

Different surfaces have different training values. The monotonous foot strike on a treadmill is hugely inferior to fell running, for example. Any outdoor running, even on a hard surface like tarmac, is going to stimulate much more ankle strength through the variety of landing orientaions, elevation and descent. Personally I'd advocate getting onto the trail as by far the most challenging and stimulating running, but then that's the type of running I coach.

I will acknowledge that a study exists that suggests that impact loading in treadmills is lower than real world. My reason for challenging is that when one looks at the coaching side of things the importance of that isn't significant. There is a far higher contribution from running form, and to a lesser extent shoes.

I would also note that the contribution to effect also depends on distance/ duration. For a 5K runner the surface is a much lower component of risk factor than for an ultra runner. Proportionality is significant. Fwiw I do know a number of people who, for various reasons, have had to train predominantly on treadmills for marathons and beyond. Whilst tedious they did the job, but every one of those runners has identified that real world training adds far more richness to the training value.

@MeanderingMammal, I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertion that "Treadmills don't inherently absorb shock loading." I cited a published, peer reviewed study that disagrees with you. All you have done is complain rather offensively about the way I cited it and offer more unsubstantiated opinions without supporting your original (incorrect) point. I actually agree with most of what you said, but in my experience when someone dances around like that they are usually trying to avoid admitting that their original point was wrong.

From another thread, but appropriate here:

While treadmills may be designed to absorb shock, the point is moot if running form, shoes and the impact of repetitive movement aren't taken into consideration. Sure, there is a shock absorbing factor that asphalt doesn't have, but for me (and many people, actually) this is completely negated by the fact that when you're not actively moving your own body through forward space and utilizing propulsion to maintain form, treadmill running can be more damaging to joints and bones than running on asphalt or concrete.