Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Running 25 mph on a treadmill

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by admin, Jul 1, 2013.

  1. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2016
  2. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    Im calling FAKE!
     
  3. Deka08

    Deka08 Active Member

    I'm backing real. This is Robert Gill, recruited to the cardinals. He can do 40 yards in 4.2 seconds and is a former track 400m runner. 25mph = 11.something m/s. 100m runners cover around 10m/s. He does 25 mph for about 2 seconds if that.
    All that said, this guy running 25mph for 2 seconds isn't going to help the cardinals too far off the bottom their division. No defence or offence. Long season ahead.
    NY giants football RULES!!!

    Regards
    Derek Condon
     
  4. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Yes, I think it's real also. Besides Mr Gill only lasted for about 6 sec. at that pace - still impressive (the guy has a good bit of speed in him). I like the treadmill.

    This is an interesting topic. A pace of 25 mph would give you a 100m time of 8.95 sec. The current world record held by Usain Bolt is 9.58 sec. (& naturally that is from a crouch start). You can fiddle around with the figures using this page - Unit Juggler.

    It gets even more interesting with the following stats from this page pertaining to speeds of man versus animals - Tag Archives: world record for 100m dash:

    - Pertaining to Usain Bolt in relation to speed & potential 100m time...
    - Other interesting (if not fascinating) speed stats within nature...
    ... & here is one of my favourite runners - the great Ethiopian, Haile Gebreselassie running at 4 min. mile pace on a treadmill...

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  5. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    4.8mph as the average human walking speed? That's (roughly) a mile in 20 minutes which is pretty good for a fit person. I suspect that across the board, the average human walking speed is slower. I don't have the references, but I suppose that's the trouble with these undefined figures.

    Bill Liggins
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  6. From wikipedia: "Specific studies have found pedestrian walking speeds ranging from 4.51 kilometres per hour (2.80 mph) to 4.75 kilometres per hour (2.95 mph) for older individuals and from 5.32 kilometres per hour (3.31 mph) to 5.43 kilometres per hour (3.37 mph) for younger individuals;[2][3] "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking

    References 2 and 3 seem to be a similar study protocol made on people crossing the road in the States, so read with caution and extrapolate with care.
     
  7. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Particularly when my maths was at fault. The original quoted figure of 4.8mph is a mile in 12.5 minutes. Very impressive for yer average wrinkly!
     
  8. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I refereed a paper a few years ago for the Journal of Human Evolution about some fossil footprints in the Ozz outback. Using various parameters, they calculated speed of up to 25km/hour - maybe people can move that quick.
     
  9. Deka08

    Deka08 Active Member

    Another one

    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/chad-johnson-24-mph-treadmill/

    I don't know how to do the attachment or link thingy so you may have to look it up. If your wondering what the "pat on the backside" comment is about, chad slapped his lawyer on the butt during his recent court date and earned himself 30 days in the slammer. Thank god for off field sports entertainment.


    Derek condon.
     
  10. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Yes Bill, the article did state 4.8 mph as "average human walking speed". This does equate in my language as about 7.7 kph. That is a decent walking pace, & yes I too wouldn't say it is "average". Particularly when we have a large percentage of the 'developed' world's population being overweight. Just a quick Google search & thus the following Wikipedia article provides WHO obesity stats (from 2007) of 74.1% (US), 68.4% (New Zealand), 67.4% (Australian - with 20% obese) & 63.8% (UK - which surprises me actually - thought they would have been above Australia)... being overweight. No doubt the figures have changed since 2007 - & not in a positive direction. Hence a problem - a big problem - & heaven forbid (on this forum, in case some insecure individual takes it personally in invokes a case for "sanctimonious tone") if I were to provide reasoning & a solution (diet & lifestyle changes) to this epidemic that affects us as Podiatrists treating the feet holding this mass up in bipedal position (let alone the degree of inappropriate footwear they use to do so i.e. high heels).

    So yes, I agree the "average" walking speed would be lower based on the shape, mass & fitness of today's average human. As interesting this is, I highlighted the above article/figures based on running speeds... & its relationship to the 25 mph treadmill running video, of which the Usain Bolt figures are quite impressive (i.e. reaching peak speed of 27.79 mph over the ground).


    Hi Rob. Well yes, humans can certainly run "25km/hour"... many children can (the sporty ones that is - unfortunately obesity is high in children as well :mad:). In fact the world best marathon time of 2:03.02 (Kenyan, Geoffrey Mutai on Boston course - thus not a World Record) is running the 42.2 km at a pace of around 20.58 kph. The 5000 m world record pace of Ethiopian Kenenisa Bekele (12:37.35) is at around 23.76 kph. I would think the 800m world record would be over 25 kph. In fact here is a guy attempting it on a treadmill ("28.5 kph" in those 5 Finger shoes)...



    As far as the evolution reference/assumptions... would you by any chance be referring to the Mungo National Park case (aka "Mungo Man" or should we say "person")? Anyway, whatever... the bipedal foot prints are human - likely Aboriginal (but who knows for sure - none of us saw the foot prints being made). The issue here when assessing foot prints (putting aside the obvious case for anatomical impression & a case for bipedalism) is age - dating methods - & the shaky grounds in which they are interpreted (i.e. internal inconsistencies, assumptions, dating contradictions, starting condition of the parent/daughter isotope ratio - subsequent decay rate as well as contamination rate). However, the consistent view of these foot prints have the assumption that the individual was running at "20 kph" with a reference that the individual was... "almost 2 meters tall" (quite tall don't you think... within the context of a certain paradigm?).

    Anyway, these are my views/findings... with sincere intentions due to an interest in the subject (& associated topics i.e. diet/lifestyle/human origins). Please no one choose to take offence or take it personally... I'm getting tired of the ruffled feathers round here (albeit, I will be more mindful in the nature/phrasing of my response when responding to illogical, non-evidence/pseudoscientific claims).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  11. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    25mph = 40kms/h Usain Bolt has been clocked at top speed: 27.44mph The average world record speed he holds over 100m is 23.35mph. The main reason I doubted the original video at the top was because a) he is not usain bolt b) when his left foot enters the treadmill its not clearly visible. Now this could be due to the resolution of the video but it just doesnt look right. Granted he only does it for a few seconds but still.....

    If it is real - its impressive. What more impressive is Usain Bolt was clocked at over 27mph on a flat track where HE accelerated to that speed, not the track moving at that speed. WOW!
     
  12. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    I'm with Paul on this. Treadmill speed moving at you and maintaining that speed seems artificial. I'd love to see the Bolt vid at 27.5 MPH, wow!

    I can cycle 25 mph, not on a treadmill mind you and I'm doubting anyone can catch me running. They need to read the speedo better, it says KPH not MPH
     
  13. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    I'm with Paul on this, the Bolt aside is this on a track and not a treadmill? I can cycle 25 mph, not on a treadmill mind you and I'm doubting anyone can catch me running. They need to read the speedo better, it says KPH not MPH

    WTH CAN YOU DELETE THIS ADMIN PLEASE?
     
  14. Deka08

    Deka08 Active Member

    Sorry. If he is going 25 kph (7m/s), he does 400m in 57 seconds (more to allow for acceleration phase). Gills PB at 400m is 49 seconds. His 40 yard dash time (unofficial) for NFL is 4.17 seconds (record is 4.2). Lets say he does it in 4.2 seconds that's 8.7 m/s average over 40 yards. This guy is quick, not Bolt quick, but fast enough. Is it the same as running 25 mph on the track (IMO) heeelllll no. If you watch the video a few times, he touches the bar to stabilise himself and stop moving back on the TM, when he lets go altogether to run he gets 4 seconds of full speed with no acceleration needed, and he is still moving back along the TM indications he is just not quite keeping up with the speed. So he is struggling at holding it together, I don't think he would struggle to hold 25 kph given his history.
    Once again I apologise. At home with wife and baby and just too much time on my hands.
    Regards
     
  15. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    I tested this yesterday with my mountain bike and could only accelerate to 26km/h - downhill I applied the breaks at 40km/h (the speed at which this guy is running) and I remember thinking that there is no way any runner could keep up with me (besides Usain Bolt!)

    :D
     
  16. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    There is no need to apologise Derek - you make some good points, in fact very valid points to substantiate the speed of Mr Gill's treadmill run (i.e. his PR/PB stats). Hang on, come to think about... we are on Podiatry Arena, where making valid points/evidence has the potential to create tension & a backlash from a minority here... hence an apology may reduce the potential of ruffled feathers (not saying that this would happen on this thread).

    Anyway, I agree with you. The thing is, Mr Gill is running on a treadmill - it is quite obvious in the following video. That belt is moving fast, his preparation kicks are fast, he starts off & nearly falls, regains composure & both legs are turning over at a very fast rate - we can hear the thump of each footstrike to substantiate he is running on the belt - both arms are pumping along with legs turning over at a fast rate (obvious by the footage)... & is only able to keep this pace up for about 4 seconds before starting to drift backwards & then nearly face planting the belt at only 5 - 6 seconds total running time...



    Hence he is definitely running on that treadmill. The question is the speed. The treadmill is certainly not your standard treadmill. I have a fairly good treadmill (goes up to 20 kph) in my clinic & have done a fair bit of treadmill work as part of training & research tests in various places i.e. gyms, Universities, sports clinics (i.e. as part of VO2max/blood lactate research). The treadmill in the video is in a gym like environment which would have to be of industrial quality (not your basic home treadmill of which most do 16 - 18 kph). There looks to be a steel platform around the belt with room for a large engine at the front of the belt, it also has substantial support bars along with a fancy control board to the side (not the front) of the treadmill (ideal for research purposes). Unfortunately we can't see the figures on the control board (poor resolution, albeit the camera did attempt to video the display for proof). Hence there is no clear cut evidence for 25 mph... but it is a darn site faster than 25 kmh. We only have to compare speeds with the following video which is of a "28.5 kph" run - the belt speed is slower, the leg turnover is slower, running time is longer & more composed - the runners are different; Mr Gill is more a sprinter & Mr Warne is a middle distance runner...



    Also, from my experience of treadmill running, Mr Gill is running a way lot faster than 25 kph on that treadmill. On my tempo treadmill runs I have ran the last 1/3 of 10km (hence 3km in 9min.) or 15km (i.e. 5km in 15min.) at 20 kph pace (3min. per km pace). Whilst I think that's fairly fast for that distance (& time), it is nowhere near as fast as Mr Gill's 6 seconds of YouTube glory. Whilst Mr Gill is no Usain Bolt we must remember that the ground under Mr Gill is revolving at the said "25 mph" before he jumps on, whilst Mr Bolt is generating that speed himself over the ground - peaking at 27.79 mph from a crouch position at 0 mph... peaking at 27.79 mph somewhere within 9 seconds of the starting gun.

    Hence, not only is 25 mph plausible... but many conditioned sprinters (as My Gill appears to be) could do likewise (& for a longer period) over the revolving platform/surface speed of a good treadmill. In fact here is another video... but of a runner at "23 mph"...

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  17. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    I'm going out on a limb here but the leg movement in VIDEO 1 far exceeds the 2MPH difference in the leg movement from video 3. I need a higher resolution video of Gill!!!!
     
  18. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Good point Paul - I agree. In fact this is part of the "secret" (if there is such a thing). In brief, the guy in video 3 has a longer limb length & a more powerful stride than the guy in video 1. The guy in video 3 is more like a Usain Bolt runner... he is taking less strides (although I haven't counted them) than the guy in video 1. Watch Usain Bolt in some of his races - sometimes he looks like he's jogging in races such as heats & semi-finals - yet he is running low 10's or popping under 10 sec. for 100m.

    Now I'm not sure of your sprinting talent Paul, but if we were to get you to race Usain over 100m & the objective was to just do enough to cross the finish line first... my guess is (& I could be wrong) that your legs would be ticking over pretty quick, taking far more (shorter) strides... whilst Usain is bounding down the track (with far lower leg turnover) to finish in likely first place... in say 11.0 sec.

    The following video displays Usain's cadence & power compared to other world class sprinters...



    Of course the other factor here with regard to the treadmill performances/speed is the accurate calibration of the treadmills (whilst likely to be accurate, we don't know for sure).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  19. Deka08

    Deka08 Active Member

    Agree, the vid resolution is poor. (I have no chance of reading kph or mph on the TM, David your doing well if it is legible.) Johnsons vid that I alluded to earlier is similar in leg movement to Ben hurs recent post. Johnson is 6 foot 1, gill is 5 foot 10, a difference of 3 inches. So my (serious) question is - is a difference of height of 3 inches enough to make a difference in leg movement like that? I note that gill runs like Michael Johnson/yohan Blake compact quick leg turn over style. Where as Johnson runs more like bolt (style not speed). Given that the belt is a stable constant (friction etc aside) does the difference in heights make a difference in leg speed and also styles?
    I make no apologies for challenging or asking q's, I only apologise for banging on about a guy on a treadmill, and extending a thread beyond its life, if I am doing that. I am here to learn and careful not to extend myself too much. Sport is my life, podiatry is a living (hope I don't get punted for saying that).

    Regards
     
  20. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Right Paul, just doesn't seem possible? BTW Paul I got up to 42 MPH (being American I have no idea what that is in KPH without a caclulator :D ) on a downhill on my new road bike. It's not even pleasant in fact I hit the brakes the rest of the descent. Perhaps fear and common sense?

    Derek I was being facetious, my eyesight is beyond poor! I think they meant 25 KPH not MPH!

    Mathhew as usual your insights have exceeded my intellectual capacities but I'm betting there's a darn good reason most treadmills max out at 18 MPH?
     
  21. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    I had to stop myself getting on the gym treadmill yesterday and turning it up to 40kms/h and jumping on whilst wearing my go pro.......
     
  22. Tuckersm

    Tuckersm Well-Known Member

    Paul,

    why not try your mountain bike on the treadmill, and post a video of that? :eek:

    just for interest
    at this years TDF, team time trial average speed for Green Edge 57kph over 25k
    yesterdays fairly flat stage over 176k, in 4 hrs at 44kph
    Cavandish max speed in a sprint finish, over the last 200m is 75kph
    and they do reach speeds close to 100kph coming down the big hills, after going up them at almost 20kph
     
  23. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    Mate the TDf guys are freaks of epic proportions! Unfortunately I might need to up my EPO levels to get my bike on a treadmill at that speed! ;)
     
  24. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Dave, I'm sure your "intellectual Capacities" are in good order & of a high standard (based on previous input of yours on this forum)... it's just we have a different opinion on something neither of us can say for sure is so. I'll certainly admit 25 mph is fast - very fast (being a runner myself) but I do feel it is within the realm of possibility for conditioned sprinters for the short duration (5-6 sec.) the runner in question is running for. Based on the 2nd video in relation to post 16 (28.5 kph) - let's just say that the treadmill speed of video 1 is somewhere between 30 kph (18.6 mph) & 40 kph (24.8 mph). I did a 10km treadmill session late last night, so I can certainly appreciate the speeds we're talking about here.

    As for most treadmills maxing out at 18 mph (30 kph... & in the majority of cases at about 20 kph). One reason is the price tag - the higher speed treadmills with their higher horse power motors would be quite expensive for the average buyer (at least a few thousand dollars)... yet for certain sports/research facilities, better quality treadmills testing elite athletes (for long/repetitive sessions) would be required & the price tag wouldn't be such an issue. The other important reason is safety... these things are dangerous... & humans have a tendency to do stupid things... where an often bad combination likely exists with many people - poor common sense in association with poor athletic ability... & you get the following results (enjoy :D)...



    I dread to think what sort of injuries would occur if more powerful treadmills were in some homes. Never ceases to amaze me how many people have the rear of their treadmill close to a wall... they trip/fall on treadmill, get whisked back at speed into the wall (if they don't put a hole in the wall), they bounce off the wall back onto the treadmill to then go back into the wall, then back onto the treadmill... it does make for funny viewing :D . I have even seen footage of two girls on a treadmill... of which one was wearing high heel shoes... :sinking: ... I won't go there :wacko:.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  25. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Just by way of a break, I got pulled in for speeding on my pedal bike a few years ago - 58kmh in a 50 limit. Admittedly, I was going seriously downhill, but the look on the officers face when he had got an old codger, not the young tearaway he expected! I was let off with a caution ......
     
  26. Ros Kidd

    Ros Kidd Active Member

    Mathew, as another diversion or break, when I want to know about decay rates, contamination rates in the rock record, in order to assess clearly any age issues involved, I go to the palaeomagnetism lab at Latrobe, run by A/Prof Andy Herries. I do not ask a podiatrist whom, to the best of my knowledge, has a zero academic background in the Earth Sciences. You are on my ignore list so I do not expect an answer, nor will I answer to any. Please keep to what you know about - podiatry. Leave Earth Science to this with academic qualification in Earth Sciences. I have just noticed I have sent this from my wife's account - this was from Rob
     
  27. Something very obvious, that no one has mentioned, about the differences of sprinting on a treadmill and sprinting overground, is the lack of wind resistance to forward progression when running on a treadmill. As anyone who has cycled at 25 miles per hour (MPH) can attest to, the force of wind at 25 MPH is a very significant factor. This lack of posteriorly-directed wind force when running on a treadmill would make possible significantly higher sprinting speeds on a treadmill than overground.

    In addition, one must also take into account the inertial effects of accelerating the mass of a runner's body to 25 MPH when overground running. When compared to starting to run at 25 MPH on a moving platform, such as a treadmill, overground running requires a considerable amount of energy usage prior to reaching 25 MPH on a track where they are spending 3-4 seconds of all-out energy usage just to accelerate their body mass to a speed of 25 MPH.

    The video is definitely a possibility and I would think, for a sprinter such as Robert Gill, not an impossible feat. I'm sure there are plenty of sprinters in the world who could also accomplish such a feat.
     
  28. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Rob. Well it appears you are now responding to my post from over a week ago (2-7-13) – you didn’t answer my questions (as per usual) but hey, I’ve come to expect that over the past 2-3 years. You’re entitled to seek your information from wherever & whoever (no doubt providing they coincide with your world view) you see fit – those within your line of interest (anthropology) tend to do that i.e. choose 'data' which fits preconceived assumptions (fossil dates coinciding within the evolution paradigm).

    I take it you have an issue with the part I’ve highlighted red – albeit, you haven’t outlined why it isn’t valid. Briefly, I’ll further elaborate the problems with this dating game:

    Firstly, the science regarding the chemical analysis (i.e. Uranium to Lead; Potassium to Argon etc...) is correct but the prepositions are incorrect hence the conclusions are not accurate based on the following...

    1/ The assumed (unknown) original status of the artefact: there is assumption on the primordial state of the artefact but you don’t know as it was not tested at this state i.e. the ratio of the parent isotope of say Uranium to its daughter isotope of Lead (or any other radiometric dating method i.e. Carbon 14). As the parent isotope decays over time we get more daughter isotope (i.e. Lead) thus the assumed dates (based on 1/2 life of the isotope) but we don’t know how much daughter isotope was there at the start of whether other factors have influenced the ratio, thus the following issue...

    2/ Being in a closed system: other factors may have influenced the ratio of isotope decay i.e. outside (contamination) factors such as the likes of water or other radiation sources. Rain/water is just one example that can affect the status of Uranium (& we do live on a watery planet). Another influence affecting contamination could be the likes of radiation whether that be cosmic or man induced i.e. there was a thread on this forum relating to the assumed healing capabilities of the Achilles tendon based around "carbon-14 spikes resulting from post WWII nuclear bomb tests"...
    Here is the research article: Lack of tissue renewal in human adult Achilles tendon is revealed by nuclear bomb C-14.

    3/ The rate of decay must always be constant: we have little idea that the decay rates have been constant over the thousands or millions of years of the artefacts presumed life. Decay rates may have been slower during one period or faster during another. Well we certainly know that this is the case. Isotope decay rates vary based on solar activity, as discovered by researchers from Stanford & Purdue Universities...
    Here is the report in question: The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements.

    The above research findings are of data found within this area of isotope contamination & decay rates & not discriminate of the implications thereof (within the evolutionary age debate). They (along with others) reveal evidence that the assumptions behind radiometric dating are inaccurate... leading to false results as well as wide variation dates from one testing facility to another (just ask Dr Johanson when he tried to get Australopithecine "Lucy" dated :confused:).

    Correct, you no doubt wouldn’t ask me about the issues (problems thereof) associated with radiometric dating. So? That’s beside the point... I just provided an opinion on a topic I have interest in (as do many others within this forum on various other topics outside the scope of Podiatry). You have no idea of my academic scope nor do I see any point informing you at this stage of circumstances; however, I have not been trained in radiometric dating, yet I do know people who delve in this area.

    Rob, you haven’t answered any questions substantiating the legitimacy of your views & that pertaining to evolution in the last 2-3 years... why should I expect any different from you now at this stage. You have had every opportunity to refute the claims of this mere Podiatrist & provide evidence for the plausibility of your position but you haven’t... no doubt because you can’t. I really couldn’t care less whose "ignore list" I’m on... the ones who have done so I don’t value the opinion of & have history of poor conduct (& there are other reasons). I now see no value trailing through such puerile views/posts & such pseudoscientific nonsense in future as I intend to focus my attention on more enlightening endeavours... hence the "ignore" option (for what it's worth) is no doubt best for both of us (helpful tip: just remember to log in for starters & then make sure you do so under your own name in future).

    You may want to take heed of your own advice Rob (instead of lecturing to me on what I should do)... particularly when you’re apparently unable to provide any credible evidence for your views. People are entitled to opinions... sometimes this includes alternative opinions to peers on this (what I thought was) a science/evidence based forum... particularly on views which have little to no scientific grounding i.e. like the legitimacy of high heel shoes, or the legitimacy of supposed traits (habitual bipedalism) of an assumed ancestral hominid. Frankly I’m getting tired of the whinges round here from those who don’t like their precious antiquated worldviews questioned. Good bye.

    Now back to treadmill running... & the controlled rates thereof :rolleyes:.
     
  29. mr2pod

    mr2pod Active Member

    I may not be able to define it was well as Kevin, but here is another thought..

    One of the other things that comes to mind as a difference in treadmill v overground running is the change in the forces associated with running on something that is moving in a "backward" direction v an almost static object (the ground).

    In line with Newton's Law of Motion, the runner is exerting a force on the surface they run on to assit in propulsion (either accelarating or maintaing momentum). If the surface is already moving in the same direction as the force applied, it will not exert the force "equal in magnitude but in the opposite direction" in the same way the ground does.

    This may account for the idea that the leg speed on the treadmill seems much faster than Bolt's 100m sprints. But, it also makes it harder to maintain that speed for a similar period of time.
     
  30. I don't think that there would be a difference between treadmill and overground running in regards to the treadmill belt moving backwards relative to the runner's body versus the ground "staying still" as the runner moved forwards relative to it other than the effects of wind resistance as I mentioned in my last posting.

    The only difference between a man running over the belt of a treadmill moving backwards at, say, 10 miles per hour (MPH) and that same man running 10 MPH overground is the wind resistance pushing posteriorly on the runner's body while running overground. In other words, the relative motion between the runner's body and the surface they are running on remain the same, whether running on a treadmill at 10 MPH or running overground at 10 MPH.

    Einstein used a thought experiment (i.e. Gedankenexperiment) of a man in an elevator in space to show the equivalance principle of gravity and acceleration in his Theory of General Relativity. One could also approach the problem of treadmill and overground running as a thought experiment to show the force-acceleration-motion equivalence of the two running activities, if wind resistance was disregarded as a factor in overground running, or if the overground running could be done in a vacuum with no wind resistance.
     
  31. Tuckersm

    Tuckersm Well-Known Member

    Kevin,

    Would running on a treadmill at 10 or 25MPH therefore be similar to running with a 10 or 25MPH tailwind?

    I can't find data on 100m with large tail winds except
    Obadele Thompson ran the 100 metres in 9.69 seconds in April 1996 with a >5m/s
    and
    Tyson Gay in June 2008, Gay ran a time of 9.68 seconds with the help of a +4.1 m/s tailwind and in 2009 ran a legal 9.69 with a +2

    both slower than Bolts 9.58 with a 0.9 tail wind

    nb a 2m/s wind is equivalent to a 4.5mph wind
     
  32. Yes. Having a tailwind of the same velocity as the runner's overground running speed would mimic treadmill running energetics more closely due to the lack of posteriorly-directed wind force against the body of the runner.
     
  33. When Usain Bolt broke the world record in 2009, he ran 27.29 MPH as a top speed. On a treadmill, I would imagine without the 27+ MPH headwind that Bolt could easily approach 30 MPH on his best day.

    Fake just because someone ran 25 MPH on a treadmill with no headwind??....please....just another day at the office for a world class sprinter.....
     
  34. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Yes Dr Kirby (or do you prefer Kevin?). Points/opinions I have been sharing here also. I see little reason doubting the 4-6 sec. 25 mph treadmill sprint video (fast I'll admit) - all the more so when we see Usain Bolt's performance (topping "27.79 mph" during 100m) across the ground (as good as he is).

    Thanks for highlighting the commercial treadmill site (I reckon they would be expensive bits of equipment).
     
  35. Matt:

    Please call me Kevin. By the way, I enjoy your posts on running. You are obviously very knowledgeable on the subject. Keep up the good work.:drinks
     
  36. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks Kevin. Thanks also for your valuable insights/knowledge on running & the biomechanical connections thereof. We no doubt have a passion in this area... :drinks

    Looking forward to the World Athletic Championships next month in Moscow (although it would appear Australian free to air TV coverage isn't too good - only 1hr. highlights each night :confused:).
     
Loading...

Share This Page