Treadmill harder than outside?

[Steve P]

Antonio Vega won the Houston Half Marathon last Sunday in 1:01:54. Also, the previous weekend he ran a PR in an indoor 3000 meter race in 8:07. What was really impressive to me was that leading up to it, he did almost all of his training on a treadmill. According to one post I read, "Antonio Vegas used the rhythm that he practiced on the treadmills, to developing his confidence and leg speed." http://www.runblogrun.com/2010/01/aramco_houston_half_marathon_i.html

So at least for Vega, treadmill running appears to have had some distinct benefits (rhythm, leg speed).

Those are two areas I'm hoping to have improved on after running mostly inside this winter.

[Sasha Pachev]

When a runner has talent, is already in good shape, and is training diligently, just about anything he does will at least appear to give him benefit.

[Steve P]

Yes, there are lots of tactics that can supposedly make a significant difference in your running performance but don't really. Statisticians call these confounding factors, and it is hard to separate them from factors that make a real difference because it is difficult logistically to control one thing at a time and see what its individual effect is. Or to test it on enough runners to see if the variation is simply due to chance.

So I'm not claiming that this one example (though Team USA Minnesota teammates who also trained on the treadmill did quite well in this race) suggests that it is a principle that all runners should follow. But I do have my doubts that he would have run quite as well in a January race if he were trudging through ice and snow. I think he would have had a hard time getting the turnover he wanted to have in his training on a consistent basis.

[Sasha Pachev]

Historically statisticians have not had a whole lot of success with runners. For a good reason. To explain, I will use a joke:

A physicist, a mathematician, and a statistician are traveling on a train and enter a new country. They get a rear view of two white sheep. Statistician: "All sheep in this country are white!" Physicist: "No, we can only conclude that just those two are white!" Mathematician: "No, we can only conclude that at least those two are at least partially white!"

Another joke. How a physicist proves that all odd numbers greater than 2 are prime: "3, true; 5, true; 7, true; 9, oops, error of the experiment; 11, true; 13, true; 15, another experimental error; 17, true, 19 true....".

So statistics works when there is enough similarity among the members of the class. The problem with runners is that they are different enough to where the common denominator is the obvious and the generalized: run consistently, maintain a good mileage base, run fast sometimes, eat a balanced diet, get enough sleep.  An uncomfortable thought for somebody in a Western educated culture is that a good coach achieves results by feel more than by science, in fact a whole lot more. Perhaps that explains in part why the Americans and Europeans get destroyed by the Asians and Africans. They put more weight on doing things by feel and thus know better how to train by feel.

Additionally, the irony of the Western way of doing things by science is that while we claim fierce loyalty to the scientific principles, we are not that good at applying them. We are perfectly happy to run with a Garmin telling us its guesses at how far we've run, and with a Polar or Suuntu "coach" that guesses our max HR from our age and tells us in its finite wisdom if we spend enough time in the magic HR zones. You do not see a whole lot of devices that would report even such basic things as stride rate, air time, and ground contact time. Why? Because our "scientific" public would have no clue what to do with this type of data. Our scientific pursuits end at reading popular summaries of somebody else's research in hopes that some smart scientist discovered a way we could double our endurance by training only three days a week while enjoying plenty of junk food.

[Steve P]

Though it would be nice, statistical analyses rarely produce definitive results. Or in other words, it's typically not about drawing black-and-white conclusions. However, science has revealed many strong statistical relationships that can help us come closer to truth on a variety of topics (including running/training strategy). We don't have to merely depend on general concepts to guide our decisions. On the other hand, we need to use our intuition (go by feel) in many, many things (including our running strategy), because we are individuals and because the science only goes so far. We need both science and intuition.

Scientists need humility in acknowledging the limits of their studies. And intuitionists need humility in accepting that data analysis can provide valuable information beyond what our own brains can infer. As an analogy, I will use medicine. If I found out I had a brain tumor, I would hope to find a doctor who considers both the latest science (including statistical inferences that had been made about the best treatments for my particular subtype of brain cancer) and his/her own intuition. Good physicians attempt to balance "art" and "science" just as athletes should.

Most of us perform informal science experiments with our training as we see what works for us and for others.

Just because people misinterpret science or fail to apply it properly, doesn't make it bad. The same could be said for religion.

[Jeff Linger]

Turning in the opposite direction from the last 2 posts, I have a very untested theory about treadmills that my intuition leads me towards. I'll give you my supposed rationale. I suspect that treadmill work is more difficult on the aerobic system at a given pace and that the same pace outside is easier. This may not so much be the case for less developed runners. If we consider the functionality of the treadmill, an economical runner loses his running economy and form benefits on the treadmill. A treadmill rotates the road under your feet and one merely needs to put their foot down and allow the treadmill to do a significant portion of the work. This, of course is not completely true, but enough so that things change on the treadmill (setting the incline to 1.5% brings some of it back). When a foot is planted outside the muscles are used to propel the runner forward. An efficient runner produces more for less in this regard. If you take an inefficient runner and an efficient runner, both in identical aerobic, muscular, neural, etc shape the inefficient runner will be working harder to maintain the same pace as the efficient runner. The form and economy of an efficient runnner produce more for less. When you step on the treadmill some of those efficiency benefits are lost because the treadmill does the pulling, instead of the runner doing the pushing. Certainly your muscles must work to coincide with the pull, but on the road an efficient runner produces more with each 'push' as it were. When those push-efficiency-benefits are lost, the aerobic system is put under greater stress to maintain the same pace to compensate. The short of this long is that you get more for less on the road and less for more on the treadmill. This doesn't mean you don't get anything out of a treadmill workout, just that the same effort on the road produces a faster pace.

I did not examine the links above so I hope I'm not duplicating something listed in them.

[Joe]

That makes sense to me.  I don't know much about running efficiency, but if seems like if someone gets their power/speed from a good push off then it certainly would be negated by the tread running at its own speed.  And maybe some people that get their speed from having a quicker turnover feel like it's easier?  That's why there's a wide range of answers about which is easier because it depends on your efficiency, stride, style, etc.  Thanks for that input.

[Sasha Pachev]

From what I've observed it is possible to run on a treadmill with a special technique that helps on the treadmill but does not help on the road. Running too much on a treadmill may teach you that technique.

[dave rockness]

I did 60% of my winter running last year on the TM and then did Boston in 3:13 (my pr is 3:09).  "Riverton Paul" did probably 75%+ in preparation for the St. George and shattered 3 hours. 

[Sasha Pachev]

I bet Ryan Hall would shatter 2:15 training solely on treadmill!

[Joe]

Further reading @

http://www.runnersworld.com/community/forums/shoes-stuff/treadmills/setting-treadmill-equal-outdoor-running-percentage-incline/.0

...for anyone interested.  Basically a lot of arguing and theory and an apparent phD involved.  But I still believe it depends on the individual.  No science is precise when the human body and brain is involved.

[baldnspicy]

Proof!  If you want to remember things better, run 12 mi on a wheel every day!   

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8467811.stm