text: We've just got some pretty decent treadmills at work, so I did my usual cragg vale hill reps session on one of them. My logic was, I didn't have the hassle of having to run back down hill a few miles on road after.
  It was definitely hard, but even maximum gradient (15%) didn't 'seem' that steep.
  Cragg vale is about 5 miles long with 950 feet of climb. That puts the average gradient of my road reps at only 3.6% according to the calculator below:
  Even taking into account the fact that my actual reps take place on the steeper sections of cragg vale, it still wouldn't be anywhere near 15%.
  In fact 15% is nearly 800 ft per mile!
  So my question is, are treadmill gradients anywhere near as equivalent as the same % incline on the roads?
  02-10-2008, 05:05 PM #3
  02-10-2008, 05:10 PM #5
  No - just wondering what kind of hornets nest is going to be stirred up by Chris's advice this time.
  02-10-2008, 05:13 PM #6
  Hornets nest/Christopher Leigh? Never
  02-10-2008, 05:13 PM #7
  margarine, just be sure not to warm up first!
  02-10-2008, 05:14 PM #8
  The biomechanics adopted is different on a treadmill and has an accumalative effect, therefore is relatively less intense. The main diiference is that treadmill running uses a passive gait, (i.e momentum going forward is assisted by the moving belt) however the same incline on the road uses an active gait (i.e you create all the forward and vertical momentum).
  I think the key training principle here is that you gain specific adaptations from imposed demands. So im affraid there is no substitute for your depressing road route.
  02-10-2008, 09:02 PM #10
  I realise that the best way to run up a hill is to train on a hill, but I'm interested in how similar the training effect is. If it isn't much difference then it would probably out weigh the injury risk from running downhill on road after a hard session.