View Full Version : Treadmill vs Actual Running
I've always wondered if there was a significant difference
between using a treadmill and actually running (or jogging)
around a track.
It seems to me like a person on threadmill doesn't exert
as much horizontal force as a person actually running
around a track. In other words, a threadmill guy could
basically use most of his energy hopping up and down while
the machine moves the tracks under him. Sure, a threadmill
person would still move his legs forward and backwards...
but that takes a lot less effort than having your legs
*push* your body forward.
So does anybody have a good idea how much less effort (or
calories) a person would exert jogging 7 miles on a thread
mill instead of jogging on an actual track?
One dark day on Usenet, opticreep@yahoo.com (Opticreep) said
news:9e1f277e.0407031655.370663c8@posting.google.com:
> I've always wondered if there was a significant difference
> between using a treadmill and actually running (or
> jogging) around a track.
>
> It seems to me like a person on threadmill doesn't exert
> as much horizontal force as a person actually running
> around a track. In other words, a threadmill guy could
> basically use most of his energy hopping up and down while
> the machine moves the tracks under him. Sure, a threadmill
> person would still move his legs forward and backwards...
> but that takes a lot less effort than having your legs
> *push* your body forward.
Not exactly. You still have to propel your body forward in
order to keep from falling of the back of the treadmill.
> So does anybody have a good idea how much less effort (or
> calories) a person would exert jogging 7 miles on a thread
> mill instead of jogging on an actual track?
Pretty close to the same amount. The lack of wind resistance
might account for a few calories.
Phil M.
--
The essential thing in life is not so much conquering as
fighting well.
Baron De Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic Games
On 2004-07-04, Opticreep <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've always wondered if there was a significant difference
> between using a treadmill and actually running (or
> jogging) around a track.
The main difference is that when you're running outdoors,
you are moving relative to the wind.
> It seems to me like a person on threadmill doesn't exert
> as much horizontal force as a person actually running
> around a track. In other words, a threadmill guy could
> basically use most of his energy hopping up and down while
> the machine moves the tracks under him.
This is true when you're running on the road too. You're
not accelerating forward, so you could just "hop up and
down" while the "road moves under you". Just like a cyclist
can sit back and let the wheels spin, and only push hard
enough to overcome various obstructions such as wind
resistance, and friction between tires and road. On a
treadmill, you're in a moving frame of reference which
confuses a lot of people.
> Sure, a threadmill person would still move his legs
> forward and backwards... but that takes a lot less effort
> than having your legs *push* your body forward.
They don't "push your body forward". You're already moving
before you put your foot down, right ? All you have to do is
prevent yourself from slowing down -- avoid obstructing your
movement. You might toe-off, but you're not accelerating any
more than you are on a treadmill.
> So does anybody have a good idea how much less effort (or
> calories) a person would exert jogging 7 miles on a thread
> mill instead of jogging on an actual track?
Almost exactly the same. Differences are due to air
resistance, possible differences in terrain, and calibration
errors on the treadmill.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
is it just me, or do others have weird neuromuscular/brain
conrol adjustment process when switching betgween treadmill
and road running?
for example, i find -- after 90% treadmill running -- that
when i run on the street, i have a very strange sense of
space; it's sort of like being in a virtual-experience
state, and i have to integrate my brain space with the
moving outside real space.
in contrast, on the treadmill, becasue the space does not
move, this integrative function is not called to work; so i
suppose this underactivity is what makes road running seem
so strange at first.
i am not descrbing this well, at the moment, but i've been
giving this perception some thought and may not fully be
able to express it yet.
other thoughts welcome!
\\ - - // ( @ @ ) +--------oOOo-(_)--oOOo----
+ +------------------------Oooo----+ oooO
( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_
On 3 Jul 2004 17:55:42 -0700, opticreep@yahoo.com (Opticreep) wrote:
>I've always wondered if there was a significant difference
>between using a treadmill and actually running (or jogging)
>around a track.
>
>It seems to me like a person on threadmill doesn't exert
>as much horizontal force as a person actually running
>around a track. In other words, a threadmill guy could
>basically use most of his energy hopping up and down while
>the machine moves the tracks under him. Sure, a threadmill
>person would still move his legs forward and backwards...
>but that takes a lot less effort than having your legs
>*push* your body forward.
>
>So does anybody have a good idea how much less effort (or
>calories) a person would exert jogging 7 miles on a thread
>mill instead of jogging on an actual track?
Despite what other people might say, the correct answer is
"it depends upon the treadmill".
I own a treadmill and I belong for a fitness club that has
treadmills. I have found that running at 7:00/mile pace on
pavement is about the same as running 6:30/mile on the
fitness center treadmills but 7:45/mile on my home
treadmill. (And yes I've taken measurement and timings of my
treadmill.)
By the way, anyone in greater Seattle want to buy a
treadmill? $100.
Phil M. wrote:
> One dark day on Usenet, opticreep@yahoo.com (Opticreep)
> said news:9e1f277e.0407031655.370663c8@posting.google.com:
>
>
>>I've always wondered if there was a significant difference
>>between using a treadmill and actually running (or
>>jogging) around a track.
>>
>>It seems to me like a person on threadmill doesn't exert
>>as much horizontal force as a person actually running
>>around a track. In other words, a threadmill guy could
>>basically use most of his energy hopping up and down while
>>the machine moves the tracks under him. Sure, a threadmill
>>person would still move his legs forward and backwards...
>>but that takes a lot less effort than having your legs
>>*push* your body forward.
>
>
> Not exactly. You still have to propel your body forward in
> order to keep from falling of the back of the treadmill.
>
>
>>So does anybody have a good idea how much less effort (or
>>calories) a person would exert jogging 7 miles on a thread
>>mill instead of jogging on an actual track?
>
>
> Pretty close to the same amount. The lack of wind
> resistance might account for a few calories.
I coudn't find the source right now but I seem to recall a
claim that a 1% grade on a treadamill was necessary to come
closer physiologically to running outdoors.
Lyle
"Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns951BD8C64C79Dseilogramp@216.77.188.18...
> One dark day on Usenet, opticreep@yahoo.com (Opticreep)
> said news:9e1f277e.0407031655.370663c8@posting.google.com:
>
> > I've always wondered if there was a significant
> > difference between using a treadmill and actually
> > running (or jogging) around a track.
> >
> > It seems to me like a person on threadmill doesn't exert
> > as much horizontal force as a person actually running
> > around a track. In other words, a threadmill guy could
> > basically use most of his energy hopping up and down
> > while the machine moves the tracks under him. Sure, a
> > threadmill person would still move his legs forward and
> > backwards... but that takes a lot less effort than
> > having your legs *push* your body forward.
>
> Not exactly. You still have to propel your body forward in
> order to keep from falling of the back of the treadmill.
>
> > So does anybody have a good idea how much less effort
> > (or calories) a person would exert jogging 7 miles on a
> > thread mill instead of jogging on an actual track?
>
> Pretty close to the same amount. The lack of wind
> resistance might account for a few calories.
>
> Phil M.
I believe it was Doubert who published work showing that
raising the grade on the treadmill to 1 or 2% gave the equal
energy expenditure to running outside at the same pace. As
Phil notes, this accounts for the energy needed to move air
out of the way when running outside. The faster one runs,
the more air resistance thus the greater the grade to equal
out the energy.
For practical purposes from a fitness/health standpoint, I
would call it equal.
I have answered this question assuming (and that is a big
assumption) that the treadmill is calibrated. Otherwise the
confounding variables are way to great.
"xenman" <xenman@sprynet.nospaam.com> wrote in message
news:e1uge0p2ksjkqtshah2lv7ll7sfldonnj4@4ax.com...
> On 3 Jul 2004 17:55:42 -0700, opticreep@yahoo.com
> (Opticreep) wrote:
>
> >I've always wondered if there was a significant
> >difference between using a treadmill and actually running
> >(or jogging) around a track.
> >
> >It seems to me like a person on threadmill doesn't exert
> >as much horizontal force as a person actually running
> >around a track. In other words, a threadmill guy could
> >basically use most of his energy hopping up and down
> >while the machine moves the tracks under him. Sure, a
> >threadmill person would still move his legs forward and
> >backwards... but that takes a lot less effort than having
> >your legs *push* your body forward.
> >
> >So does anybody have a good idea how much less effort (or
> >calories) a person would exert jogging 7 miles on a
> >thread mill instead of jogging on an actual track?
>
> Despite what other people might say, the correct answer is
> "it depends upon the treadmill".
>
> I own a treadmill and I belong for a fitness club that has
> treadmills. I
have
> found that running at 7:00/mile pace on pavement is about
> the same as running 6:30/mile on the fitness center
> treadmills but 7:45/mile on my home treadmill. (And yes
> I've taken measurement and timings of my treadmill.)
>
> By the way, anyone in greater Seattle want to buy a
> treadmill? $100.
On 2004-07-04, Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
> I coudn't find the source right now but I seem to recall a
> claim that a 1% grade on a treadamill was necessary to
> come closer physiologically to running outdoors.
Jack Daniels makes this claim, for example.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
On 04 Jul 2004 03:14:35 GMT, virginiaz@aol.commentary (Virginiaz)
wrote:
>is it just me, or do others have weird neuromuscular/brain
>conrol adjustment process when switching betgween treadmill
>and road running?
sure. i hear this from newbies to treadmill and elliptical
machines all the time. not so fancy phrasing, but the idea
is the same. ...thehick
>For practical purposes from a fitness/health standpoint, I
>would call it equal.
I do my winter running on a treadmill, altho I try to get to
a lower elevation (and out of the snow) one day on the
weekends, and feel that it is excellent for maintaining
fitness. The main difference, for me, is in the legs. In the
Spring, my legs have to make an adjustment to running
outdoors again that my lungs don't.
Richard
I've been lurking in this newsgroup on and off for years and
this question comes up a lot. I've done a lot of both and I
find treadmill running at 0% grade measurably easier than
road running. How could it not be? One, the road doesn't
move under your feet, so more exertion is required. Two,
when running outdoors you're running through air, which
causes resistance. On a treadmill, you're running in place.
"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<i-
Z2Gc.5647$oD3.1018@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> I have answered this question assuming (and that is a big
> assumption) that the treadmill is calibrated. Otherwise
> the confounding variables are way to great.
>
>
> "xenman" <xenman@sprynet.nospaam.com> wrote in message
> news:e1uge0p2ksjkqtshah2lv7ll7sfldonnj4@4ax.com...
> > On 3 Jul 2004 17:55:42 -0700, opticreep@yahoo.com
> > (Opticreep) wrote:
> >
> > >I've always wondered if there was a significant
> > >difference between using a treadmill and actually
> > >running (or jogging) around a track.
> > >
> > >It seems to me like a person on threadmill doesn't
> > >exert as much horizontal force as a person actually
> > >running around a track. In other words, a threadmill
> > >guy could basically use most of his energy hopping up
> > >and down while the machine moves the tracks under him.
> > >Sure, a threadmill person would still move his legs
> > >forward and backwards... but that takes a lot less
> > >effort than having your legs *push* your body forward.
> > >
> > >So does anybody have a good idea how much less effort
> > >(or calories) a person would exert jogging 7 miles on a
> > >thread mill instead of jogging on an actual track?
> >
> > Despite what other people might say, the correct answer
> > is "it depends upon the treadmill".
> >
> > I own a treadmill and I belong for a fitness club that
> > has treadmills. I
> have
> > found that running at 7:00/mile pace on pavement is
> > about the same as running 6:30/mile on the fitness
> > center treadmills but 7:45/mile on my home treadmill.
> > (And yes I've taken measurement and timings of my
> > treadmill.)
> >
> > By the way, anyone in greater Seattle want to buy a
> > treadmill? $100.
On 2004-07-06, John B. <jbrink505@aol.com> wrote:
> One, the road doesn't move under your feet, so more
> exertion is required.
Don't know about you, but when I run on the road, I do
indeed see the road moving under my feet. Maybe you need to
exert yourself a little more (-;
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
