I've been wondering if running on a track isn't far different from running running on a treadmill. From a Physics perspective, it sure would seem so. When you're running on a track, you're actually pushing away from the ground, and in doing so you're propelling your body forwards -- thus expending energy. On a treadmill, it is undoubtable that you expend energy, but is is the same as running the same "distance" on a track? Once you get going, the belt under your feet gets it's own momentum, it seems like, and you don't have to apply as much force to keep moving at your speed.

Has anyone dealt with this before? Is running the same distance on a track really better than on a treadmill? Would it be more time-effective to use a track? Are the distance measurement displays on treadmills effective? How about the calorie expenditure measurements?

I used to do almost all of my training on a treadmill because I have kids, and needed the childcare. My rude awakening came when I did all my running on a tread and then tried to run my first half marathon. Despite running all my long runs and everything on a treadmill (speed, distance etc) it was SO HARD to run outside and the distance shocked me. the same distance outside felt SO much harder than on the machine. I started challenging this same theory.

A friend of mine tested the speed of a few treads with some electronic contraption she has and found that different treads display different speeds than what they say-but they're not even consistant amongst themselves. She found most treads are what they say they are at 6.0 (10 min pace) but once you start increasing speed they display slower than what they are actually running. This would explain the momentum theory you have. Once you get running on it, your own feet generate additional momentum.

This also explains why the track is much harder than the tread. On the tread the momentum+the actual mechanical spin of the tread allows for your feet merely to touch down, enjoy the ride to the back and pick up again. Very little force needs to be applied since your own force is not what is spinning it. I'm sure there is benefit to it, of course, but not nearly the benefit gained outside on still ground.

Not to mention the difference in terrain you'll find outside, the positions your feet move due to change in direction etc. So much better outside-a MUCH better workout in my book.

Thanks for your post, Sparrow. Yes, this is the exact phenomenon that I was interested in. I asked because it is ofcourse much easier and more convenient to run on a treadmill than to find a track that you can use, atleast around here. But if the track gives a better workout, and a better calculation of how many calories I'm expending per mile or per hour, then I will probably go with that.

I never run on a treadmill with any less than a 2% incline. This is supposed to compensate and make it equivalent to flat ground. Whether it does or not i don't know but I was making far better time on my 5k races than what i was doing on a treadmill on a fairly flat course.

Ok, I asked the trainer at the Y about this and he says it's because of the difference between the hardness of the typical running surface and the hardness of the treadmill. That may be a little of it, but I'm not buying it and here's why.
Let's say I weigh 160 pounds (which I did last April and will shortly again), and my running stride is 5 feet between footfalls. That means that between every footfall I do 800 foot-pounds of work (let's ignore the movement of arms and legs up and down). To duplicate that on a treadmill, my foot would have to push the track back 5 feet with every stride. But it doesn't. There's an electric motor that moves the track under me. That's what performs the 800 foot-pounds of work. On a treadmill I perform 160 times 0 foot-pounds of work. My body expends a lot more enery to do 800 foot-pounds of work per stride than 0.

The guy at the Y is WRONG. It doesn't have to do so much with the force you're exerting (although, that plays a role) as it does a PACE..

A treadmill gets you into your "groove". Meaning, you're able to keep your tempo and rhythm because the machine is doing it for you. You know if you start falling back, to inch up the pace slightly, and if you start moving up towards the controls, you need to inch it back some. A pace does EVERYTHING for you when running distances like maintain your breathing and believe it or not, brain functionality.

When I used to run cross-country for high school, our coach never let us use treadmills because of this fact. If I go to the gym, I can literally run until my body is physically unable to because a pace is being kept FOR ME. You ask me to run the same distance outside on even just an oval track, it is much harder because you don't have a pace being kept for you. Much the same it's easier to run or cycle in groups because you have a pacer.

PACE is why it's hard to run marathons, not because you can't, but because you won't eat **** and fall on your face if you don't keep an exact ___ mph or cadence.

You make a good point, setting an inline would increase how much force you have to apply, and it could balance out the energy that you miss out on by not actually propelling yourself forward. Is anyone experienced in this and would know just how much of an incline would simulate running on a track?

@ Oicdn - Granted, pace is going to be important when comparing running on a treadmill to running outside the gym, but the thing I'm most concerned about is the energy expenditure per mile run. Surely there is a significant difference among those?

Regarding this 'unknown', because it is an unknown -- I'd say that treadmills (at least the ones I run on) are faster than on the ground, HANDS DOWN. Here's why: I've been running on a tread because I prefer them... therefore my 'muscle memory' regarding foot speed and turnover is automatic. When I test on the road or a track... I am amazingly surprised at how fast I run. The computer indicates that at 9mph is a 6:40 pace/mile... no way! I used to do repeat 1/2 miles at that pace -- when I did a 1/2 mile on a track I was at around 2:45! I wasn't running any faster than I did on a tread.

To simulate the force necessary to push off of the ground most treads will give you that feel at 1% to 1.5% incline - this comes from an ex Olympic alternate (800M) who now sells treads.

I run at min of 3%, sometimes 3.5% at over 8mph -- trust me, that pace (foot turnover) is in the upper 6 min/mile pace. (today actually - 8.7 mph for a few milesat 3% - felt good.)

The other reason I prefer to train on a tread is because I can't slow down involuntarily like we all can do when we run outside. It is easy to just slow down on the road, or not realize that we are. On a tread the only way is to physically reach and push the minus button.

Therefore, I train on a tread, and test on the track/road.

FYI

I answer your question below.

That's exactly the reason why training on a tread is much easier. It takes away the ease of slowing. You're FORCED to keep a pace.

My buddy's mom was an Olympian in the late 80's who could do a mile in under 5 minutes still today and I JUST asked her this question. She said in summary, the energy expenditure is the same on both a tread and on a track. The tread, by nature gives you things like an ideal temperature, ideal running surface and a FORCED PACE that attribute to the ease of conditioning you to run. But it is in no shape or form good to use to replace actual track time. She said it's like football training. It's a suitable training regimen to prepare you for games, but there is NOTHING that can replace actually playing games.

The nature of the tread MAKING YOU keep pace without physically pressing the minus button or stop button in itself keeps you're energy expenditure, and willpower to keep going is what makes running on a tread seem easier...I wish I could get her to type it. It made much clearer sense when she explained it.

Tread running is easier and a poor choice imho.

Too many variables are constant in the gym. Temperature, wind resistance, pace/speed, hydration. Once you have everything set, you're comfortable on that treadmill.

On the road your comfort levels are all over the place. Plus a constant pace isn't really feasible - you corner, stop and go because of things in the way, etc. And the ground is uneven, unlike a perfectly level treadmill surface.

I prefer practical exercise. Besides, running outside is awesome fun.

I don't care about the excercise: I'm not training to run in a marathon, I'm not training for a competitive sport, I simply use running as my chosen form of energy burning to burn off fat.

As such, all I want to know is if I am actually burning around 130 calories for every mile I run (on a treadmill I would calculate a mile by how long I've been running and at what speed), which is the amount that I should be burning at my body weight.

Energy expenditure is calculated by how much distance you cover. Running a mile only exerts a little more energy than walking a mile because you are also pushing yourself up while running, not just propelling yourself forward. Point being, energy expenditure requires covering distance with your feet. Keeping pace is useful, but I don't understand how that affects energy expenditure.

The problem here is, when you're on a treadmill, you aren't covering distance with your feet. You're picking up your feet and putting them down while the ground moves underneath you. Assuming I am correct about all this, an ideal treadmill would be one that only moved when your feet pushed back on it, and stopped moving if your feet were not pushing it backward. I'm not saying that there is zero energy expenditure on a typical treadmill, just that I don't think it's as much as running on a track.

I'm just waiting for someone to either confirm or debunk these things, or to offer solutions to raise treadmills to the level of outside running (setting an incline was a promising such suggestion). So far, people have mentioned why running outside is better than inside, but nothing really explaining the energy expenditure.

No, no it isn't... Energy expenditure is calculated by how much energy your body uses. Your body burns more to make itself move faster than it does to keep a comfortable pace for a distance.

Walk 1 mile, see how exhausted you get.

Now try to sprint a mile... Still convinced energy expenditure is more proportioned to the distance than speed?


When you walk:

-Your stride is MUCH shorter.
-Your legs don't use much of their motion range (the muscles can stay fairly relaxed, you don't need to lift your legs as high, you're not rotating those joints in the hip as much)
-Your heart rate is slower
-Your breathing is slower (heart rate and breathing are wired directly to the amount of energy you're expending)


When you run:

-Your stride increases possibly as much as 5 fold
-Your legs must stretch out more, using more range of motion
-Your heart rate increases as a response to the faster movement. This happens even if you only jog a short spurt. Your heart is wired to speed up as your body speeds up BEFORE you start getting exhausted and needing the blood-flow. It can happen in as short a time frame as walking up a flight of stairs. However the increase for a short period is much less than if you maintained that speed/effort.
-Your breathing increases, for the same reasons as your heart. That's right, just because you breath a bit heavier after walking up a few stairs doesn't mean you're out of shape. Your lungs are designed to work harder in response to that slight bit of effort increase.

What this means:

-Your heart uses energy, your lungs use energy. The increase in heart rate and breathing means your body is using more energy just to run its vital organs in response to your activity.
-You engage the muscles in your legs more. More muscles contract to move your legs a greater distance to widen your stride. This takes energy.
-You put more demand on your muscles. Since your stride can only get so wide, your legs must exhert more push within the same stride distance. As this push increases, you move faster. As you move faster, your legs must move back and forth faster to keep making contact with the ground in time. ALL of this takes extra energy to do.

So you see, running is significantly more demanding than walking. Regardless of how long or short the distance is. You would have to walk a few miles over the course of a couple hours to burn the energy you'd burn running a mile in 10 minutes (which is not an advanced goal).

When you start moving, you consume an innitial investment of energy to get the acceleration going from 0 to x. Furthermore you must invest additional energy to accelerate from x to y. When you slow down you do not recover significantly, you only ease the effort your muscles are expending, although this does allow some extent of recovery. In order to speed up again, you must expend extra energy to create that acceleration again. A car works exactly the same actually. All moving objects do.

When you run with a pace, you use that pace to your advantage, you're sort of able to coast your way through. Rather than having to use additional energy constantly to increase your speed, you can maintain a speed. This is because as you're running the ground is passing under you, the speed you pass over the ground is set at the speed you want to be traveling. Because of this, your foot will be moving backwards once it hits the ground regardless. Because you're running at pace, the speed your foot is moving is at the pace you want to be, so, less effort is required from that leg to make it travel at the speed you want to be at since your velocity is doing some of the work for you.

You can feel the power of this force for yourself. Sprint as FAST as you can. Now try to stop in place. You'll probably find that you can't, you get pushed forwards because of the speed you had going.

A good example of this is a bicycle. As you move faster, it becomes easier to push the pedals because the wheels are already moving, so the chain has to do less to move them. Whereas if you were to accelerate, or start from a stopped position, there would be a period of extra effort required to push the pedal to move the pedals to get the wheels spinning to that speed.

So the physics lesson: Acceleration ALWAYS takes more force than maintained speed.

Frequent acceleration and deceleration is a great way to waste energy.

This is why pacing makes such a huge contribution to how well a run goes for you.

As for the question at hand of track vs. tread. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

There's nothing to stop you from getting a really good workout on a treadmill. If you find the treadmill easier, make it harder, turn the speed up, use an incline, there's no reason to say that the treadmill is too easy to bother with.

The track will give you some additional more natural aspects (ie. direction changes, turns, etc), but the question is, how well do you really want to run? Do you WANT to be able to run through a natural course with diverse terrain? Or do you just want to get your 40-60 minutes of activity each day? A treadmill will definitely train your ability to run, but a track will adjust you to the aspect of the track.

Furthermore, the treadmill makes it easier to push yourself harder. On a track, you're free to slow down, free to take it easier on yourself, free to do what you wish. On a treadmill, you can keep yourself going easier. It's easier to push that little extra bit of distance when you have a machine that'll force you to run at speed. You can always tell yourself "I'm just going to leave the machine running like this and bide my time until I've covered the time required to meet that distance mark regardless of what I want to do". This can be very helpful for someone who isn't accustomed to the mental aspect of running. It's like having a coach who will yell at you every time you slow down. Except instead of yelling at you, the treadmill trips you, or throws you off. Use common sense of course, but in this respect, the treadmill can be an advantage to training yourself mentally for running.

So overall, both methods have the capability of giving a workout which will push you to your limits. The track DOES have some additional features which will deliver more training than the treadmill. It's impossible that these features wouldn't require a bit more energy to work with, although how much energy is up for debate.

The fact is though, running is still running. Whether it's on a treadmill or a track you will still get a good workout, and a treadmill will offer more than you need to help you achieve good fitness. Unless you're going to be running on a track, it's not crucial that you train yourself on a track. The training you do on the treadmill will still improve your performance on the track, even if the track still seems much harder to you.

Use whichever makes you happiest. If you just want good health, both will do the trick. If you just want to get more exercise in less time, run faster. For someone who's JUST trying to keep their body in shape, there's no need to go out of your way to adapt to a track.

However, if you've just been walking on the treadmill for more time going the same distance you'd be running, any improvement in fitness will be minimal at best. The distance between you and the starting line wont tell you how much energy you use. It's the sweating, breathing, and heart rate which tell you how hard you're working. Power walking is a bit better, but even so, a 1 mile power walk does not equal a 1 mile run whether it's on a track, or treadmill.

As far as the displays on the treadmill go... No, they are not accurate.

No display on any exercise machine is accurate. In fact, most of the monitors you can buy separately wont be accurate either.

The pulse monitor:

-Simply put, it's wrong. Those little hand-grip pulse bars they put on treadmills are junk. They just don't detect your pulse accurately enough to count it properly.
-The sweat on your hands will actually interfere with the machine's ability to detect your pulse.
-The finger clips aren't much better
-ALL heart rate monitors have a margin of error. Even the high-quality chest-strap monitors can pick up and display a false pulse reading, however the chest straps have a much lower margin of error, and will give you the most accurate reading possible without access to medical equipment.
-In my experience, the handle-bar readers are less reliable than your own judgment.

Calorie Counter:

-Wrong.
-There are far too many variables that determine the amount of calories burned that a treadmill can never account for. I 100% guarantee that your reading is wrong. It could be higher, it could be lower.