Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physical Fitness Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for physical fitness professionals, athletes, trainers, and those providing health-related needs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I know the smooth ground and no wind resistance make it easier. But does the ground being pulled beneath you make it easier too?

share|improve this question
4  
Also been looked at on Physics.SE: What's the difference between running up a hill and running up an inclined treadmill?, though I would treat the research in Dave Liepmann's answer as more definitive (or not as the case seems to be). –  dmckee Feb 2 '12 at 15:59
    
Is there a reason you're asking which one is easier? I'm curious to hear what the intent is in relation to exercise. –  Matt Chan Feb 3 '12 at 18:48
    
We were discussing about the treadmills and trying to list the disadvantages. Someone mentioned about this. I know that groud being pulled will cause different gait and it is bad, but I wonder if it makes running/walking easier or not. If you are using treadmills heavily, you should know this detail; that was the intent... thank you (by the way, you can ask the same (your) question for almost half of the questions here) –  spinodal Feb 6 '12 at 15:07
add comment

6 Answers 6

up vote 13 down vote accepted

The science seems divided, though I am inclined to see value in the arguments that differences persist.

Update the first: Though the physics "frame of reference" solution has merit, I am for the moment convinced by the idea that the addition of energy from the belt-rotating mechanism changes the system significantly enough for treadmill running to differ from overground running kinematically, bio-mechanically, proprioceptively, and in terms of inertial reference frames. When I'm running overground, my foot lands on a surface that is moving in reference to my body, but it will not continue to move at that speed unless I impart force to it. This is not true on a treadmill. We are adding outside forces and momentums with the addition of a belt instead of a massive earth.

Moving Through Space Versus Swinging The Leg

This RunnersWorld article has a high-level review of some literature on differences between overland and treadmill biomechanics.

Bryan Chung of Evidence-Based Fitness made a nice argument against the idea that treadmill running is similar to ground traversal running. Unfortunately, as I recall, there were some clarifying points in the comments that are no longer visible since his switch to Facebook comments.

When you walk overground, your heel strikes the ground and you move your weight over your foot. Your body passes over your foot and then as you strike with your other foot in front of you, the foot behind you pushes off. The biggest difference between treadmill running/walking and overground running/walking is the relative position of your body to your foot while it's on the ground. On a treadmill, your heel strikes the belt, and your foot moves under your body behind you. As your foot is assisted off the ground behind you, you strike the treadmill belt with your other foot.

Sounds almost identical, doesn't it? However, in overground walking, you are moving the weight of your body over your foot. In treadmill walking, the belt does all the moving for you. You're not propelling your weight; the belt is propelling your foot.

Research Survey

There's also, as Chung indicates, a good deal of biomechanical analysis of the topic.

Lee and Hidler argue that the treadmill is fine for therapeutic uses, but found muscular differences. Elliot, Pyke, Roberts, and Morton (PDF), contrary to Chung's argument, found no differences in gait. However, they did not make any analysis regarding energy expenditure and are careful to note that their research was solely on sub-maximal running mechanics. Parvataneni and Krishnaji found that the elderly (including stroke patients) had a greater energy expenditure when on a treadmill. They also found, as others have, that overground walking involves much more stabilization work necessary to combat asymmetry. Alton, Baldey, Caplan, Morrissey found significant differences in gait attributes. (Their research was restricted to walking.)

I would expect that the disagreements over whether differences exist is due to different definitions of gait mechanics, and/or the subjects used. I am therefore very tentative in any conclusions I draw from these studies.

Update the second: Doctor Chung has kindly updated his post with a set of studies from the old comments:

Baur1, Hirschmüller, Müller, Gollhofer, Mayer:

Differences in muscle activity between T and O running must thus be taken into consideration in studies of neuromuscular control of movement.

I particularly appreciated the methodology (alas, gleaned from the abstract alone) in this study by Frishberg:

Five college-varsity sprinters volunteered to run 100-yd sprints in both overground and treadmill running conditions. After a minimum of 10 training sessions on the treadmill, the subjects were filmed...sprinting 100 yd and expired respiratory gases were collected during an 18-mm recovery period.

The oxygen debt of the overground condition...was 36% greater than the treadmill running condition.... Regardless of individual running style, the major bio-mechanical differences between treadmill and overground running conditions occurred during the support phase and were observed in the supporting leg. During treadmill running, the leg of the supporting lower extremity was less erect at contact...and moved through a greater range of motion...with a faster overall angular velocity.... The thigh of the supporting lower extremity was more erect at contact...and moved with a slower overall angular velocity.... Data suggest that the moving treadmill belt reduces the energy requirements of the runner by bringing the supporting leg back under the body during the support phase of running.

I am also immediately struck by the inherent problem in comparing overground sprints, where maximal speed is determined by the runner, with treadmill sprints, where speed is dictated by the machine controlling the belt.

In contrast, this study by Bassett, David R. Jr., Giese, Nagle, Ward, Raab, and Balke tried to study the same thing, and I think its methodology is deeply flawed. There's also this study on walking, which shows exactly what one would expect if people were allowing the belt to move their feet for them:

Although the patterns of the vertical reaction forces for the two forms of locomotion were nearly identical, small but significant differences in selected force magnitudes were evident. The interpretation of locomotion data collected on a treadmill should consider that forces during mid- and late-stance may be different than if the subject walked overground.

That sounds to me (though I could be wrong) like late in each step, the foot is allowed to come up instead of continuing to push against the ground.

The MovNat-Style Perspective

What the heck are you doing inside paying money to look at an LCD readout when you could be outside--for free!--seeing beautiful places and climbing rocks and getting tired the way humans have gotten themselves tired for millennia! Gah! "Don't take a perfectly good activity like walking and make it suck by doing it on a treadmill." (quoted from Your Workout Sucks on YouTube)

Unless you have a specific reason to use a treadmill--you're recovering from an injury, you live in Antarctica, you're training for the Inside Olympics--the kinematics and biomechanics are probably insignificant compared to the benefits of running outside. More importantly, you should find it aesthetically offensive. For example, strength and conditioning coach Keegan Smith has this response to someone with a similar question. It loses nothing by substituting "treadmill" for "elliptical":

Are you kidding me? [An] elliptical!? You’ve been blessed with a machine much more advanced than the greatest sports car. We’re are the top of the chain in the animal kingdom for movement dexterity and you want to spend time on elliptical! Re-gain your youth! Have some fun and learn new skills during your movement time.

share|improve this answer
1  
Nicely researched answer @Dave and +1 for that last paragraph: get the hell outside! –  Ivo Flipse Feb 2 '12 at 12:27
    
You said "When I'm running overground, my foot lands on a surface that is moving in reference to my body, but it will not continue to move at that speed unless I impart force to it. This is not true on a treadmill." However, it is true on a treadmill. If you stop imparting force to the treadmill, it will stop moving relative to your body. You will end up stationary on the treadmill belt as it pulls you off the back of the machine. –  user2567 Feb 2 '12 at 23:31
1  
There are significant differences between running on a treadmill and running outside, but none are simply because of the "ground being pulled beneath you". –  user2567 Feb 2 '12 at 23:33
2  
I am not talking about standing still, I am talking about letting my leg be moved under my torso such that my torso stays in place without me expending any energy except as is necessary to pull my leg in front of me. –  Dave Liepmann Feb 2 '12 at 23:41
add comment

Edit: See the other answers for why I have changed my position. disregard the following.

I disagree with the other answer. The belt pulls your foot from the moment of impact until you lift your foot again, reducing the work that your hamstrings do.

One recommendation is to adjust the incline on the treadmill to 4% to adjust for the disparity.

In conclusion, yes.

share|improve this answer
1  
"The belt pulls your foot" in the case of the treadmill is the same as "your momentum carries you forward" in the case of street running. This answer is incorrect. –  user2567 Feb 1 '12 at 19:27
2  
There is no privileged frame of reference. You are moving your body forward on the treadmill relative to the belt. That isn't different than moving your body forward over the ground when road running. The belt doesn't move your legs. You move your legs. If you don't, you stop moving relative to the belt and you go off the back of the treadmill. Think about a very long treadmill. Like a mile long. If you don't do anything, you move backward. You have to do work to move forward relative to the treadmill. The same work that you'd need to do to move at the same relative speed over the ground. –  user2567 Feb 1 '12 at 22:17
2  
Friz, another at-the-very-least point. My position on the mile-long treadmill would change, without question, since my propelling force would not equal the treadmill's movement. Similarly, sprinting on a treadmill is more "matching myself to the speed of the belt" than actually sprinting all-out. I think those could be significant. –  Dave Liepmann Feb 2 '12 at 13:28
2  
@Dave: If you tried to let the belt pull your foot you would begin moving backward in the frame of the gym, culminating on falling off the machine. On a real run letting the ground pull your foot backward slows you down. In a idealized PhysicsLand (tm) they are the same. When we did this topic on Physics.SE I guessed at wind resistance and the unevenness of the most outdoor surfaces as the source of the differences. –  dmckee Feb 2 '12 at 16:02
3  
I think you're all mistaking the human body as a single point of mass, rather than a complex system of bones brought into motion by muscles. The only convincing evidence for me would be a measurement of the kinematical joint motions, EMG muscle activations and oxygen consumption where they compare both types of running. All we're doing here is speculate –  Ivo Flipse Feb 3 '12 at 18:28
show 11 more comments

Treadmills are easier, but it won't be a big difference (unless it is raining, freezing, or very hot outside), which is probably what friz meant.

Someone on a treadmill could easily cheat by cranking the speed way up and hanging onto the rails, letting the motor pull their legs. But then that is cheating. You can't really cheat when you are walking on the ground.

You are not physically moving the mass of your body, but the motion of moving your legs and arms are still going to cause your heart rate to increase and calories to burn.

Walking "in the wild" (i.e. on the ground) can burn more calories because of the extra work required to move the mass ...but it should be negligible in the grand scheme of things given that treadmills are so versatile.

share|improve this answer
add comment

There is another factor to consider about the ease of use of running on a treadmill versus running outside, how it affects you mentally. I find it much more difficult to run on a treadmill because I find it incredibly monotonous compared with the variety of sensory input experienced while running outside. The MovNat reference that was mentioned extends that even further. Keep in mind, too, that even slight terrain variations within a city can help provide a bit more physical variation (texture, slope, camber, etc. and the resulting slight muscular compensatory differences) compared with the exact same motion on each step on a treadmill. There is an additional physical difference in your ability to change motion as you feel the need to without needing to manipulate an external control first. Unless the weather makes running outside treacherous, I would much rather do that than run on a treadmill.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for the boredom factor. I avoid lengthy track workouts for the same reason. –  James Sneeringer Apr 23 '12 at 2:08
add comment

No. The belt "being pulled beneath the runner" is not a factor. As stated in previous answers and comments, there is no privileged frame of reference, so it is just as valid to analyze the treadmill system based on a coordinate system that moves with the belt as it is to analyze the overground running based on a coordinate system that is fixed to the Earth. These two systems are mechanically equivalent (if the ground happened to be the same material as the treadmill). This was established early on (1980) in the literature, and hasn't been challenged since.

From Some fundamental aspects of the biomechanics of overground versus treadmill locomotion:

As long as the beltspeed is constant [...] no mechanical difference exists in comparison with overground locomotion with respect to a fixed coordinate system. All differences found in locomotion patterns must therefore originate from other than mechanical causes.

share|improve this answer
    
Well shoot... wish I had seen this months ago! I will leave my answer, for the sake of the conversation in comments. –  The Chaz 2.0 Mar 7 '12 at 19:50
    
For sure :) It's interesting to see the variety of interpretations that we come up with using common sense. –  user3085 Mar 7 '12 at 19:54
    
"As long as the beltspeed is constant". That's a spherical cow if I've ever heard one. Running (and particularly sprinting) on a constant-speed treadmill seems like it must be at least somewhat different from determining one's own speed while running over land. –  Dave Liepmann Nov 6 '12 at 15:57
    
+1, although this was established ca. 1600, not 1980 –  Ben Crowell Nov 26 '13 at 20:39
add comment

Like most things, yes and no, and some of it is individual. Personally, I find running outside to be much more physically challenging. Part of it is that, as your question notes, the treadmill does create a "pulling" effect, though I suspect that the majority of the difference is the basic and often minor variation of terrain that your muscles constantly adjust to. My experience is that I can hit impossibly fast mile times (for my own fitness level) on treadmills than outdoors. On the other hand, though, treadmills don't just pull your feet; they also force you to run faster than you would generally push yourself on your own.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.