Crosstrainer as a run replacement?

kingQuez

I've never been a fan of gym equipment, but this week replaced two runs with time on a crosstrainer. I'd a little niggle in my left calf and wanted to avoid impact till I got it sorted out (all happy now). I'm curious how a XC based session stacks up against a run? I've often seen threads about how a treadmill session stacks up (bump the incline a bit to make it more "equivalent" to running outside), but nothing about the XC.

I did a "steady" session which gave me a HR 20 beats higher than I'd normally have during a run (I was soaked, but it seemed to give appropriate levels of fatigue in glutes/hamstrings/quads), and did some "intervals" as the other session alternating easy effort with hard effort and it had a similar effect. Timewise I just traded the run time for the XC time, and put the resistance at a level that wasnt hard but let me hit a "normal" cadence. The distance the XC reported was well down on what equivalent time on a run/treadmill would give.

Curious what other peoples experiences are if you've tried using one; are they remotely appropriate as a run alternative, and if so whats the right thing to aim for (distance/resistance/time adjustment)?

Raighne

kingQuez wrote: »

I've never been a fan of gym equipment, but this week replaced two runs with time on a crosstrainer. I'd a little niggle in my left calf and wanted to avoid impact till I got it sorted out (all happy now). I'm curious how a XC based session stacks up against a run? I've often seen threads about how a treadmill session stacks up (bump the incline a bit to make it more "equivalent" to running outside), but nothing about the XC.

I did a "steady" session which gave me a HR 20 beats higher than I'd normally have during a run (I was soaked, but it seemed to give appropriate levels of fatigue in glutes/hamstrings/quads), and did some "intervals" as the other session alternating easy effort with hard effort and it had a similar effect. Timewise I just traded the run time for the XC time, and put the resistance at a level that wasnt hard but let me hit a "normal" cadence. The distance the XC reported was well down on what equivalent time on a run/treadmill would give.

Curious what other peoples experiences are if you've tried using one; are they remotely appropriate as a run alternative, and if so whats the right thing to aim for (distance/resistance/time adjustment)?

They are not appropriate for runners for many reasons. Firstly, there is no ground reaction force involved at all on a cross-trainer - which is the key force you need to learn to control when you run. Secondly the movement pattern involved is damaging to correct running form. It involves long levers and a pendulum movement swinging the leg from the hips rather than the bouncy hamstring pull in running. Without getting to technical you are achieving almost the opposite usage of muscles necessary for running.

Your calves won't thank you in the long-term as as they are brought into a pushing pattern that will take potentially begin to take over in your running. The reason you're having calf issues relates to how you load your foot during the landing phase - so it's not a case of overuse but misuse.

While you can get some cardiovascular stress out of the machines alright, and the heart rate is higher because you are using your arms more actively, I would never advise anyone I train near these machines. There's enough "bad information" going into people's movement brains with sitting and everything else around without having to add this as well.

Train movement, not muscle and you will keep injuries at bay and all you do will be specific to the discipline of your choice. The further you remove your body from the natural laws: gravity and ground reaction force (externally) and muscle and elastic action (internally) the worse movement patterns you will choose and the worse your movement will become, over time.

nerraw1111

I tried a session last week on one of these and felt like I was on a mechanical bull, almost getting thrown from it. My attempts were comical on it.

It felt very unnatural, left me wondering what the hell the point of the machine is or was I just using it wrong.

I then went on to the stepping machine with similar results although I reckon that was down to my technique. I presume that machine is ok for replicating steep climbs.

Raighne

nerraw1111 wrote: »

I tried a session last week on one of these and felt like I was on a mechanical bull, almost getting thrown from it. My attempts were comical on it.

It felt very unnatural, left me wondering what the hell the point of the machine is or was I just using it wrong.

I then went on to the stepping machine with similar results although I reckon that was down to my technique. I presume that machine is ok for replicating steep climbs.

Yes, it would be natural to assume so but unfortunately it only mirrors incorrect running technique for steep uphills with an active push-off (too much muscle action versus elastic action, too much ground contact time). Any machine that does not have allow for the plyometric element does not correctly educate the athlete on coping with and applying force into the ground with a perfect balance of muscle and elasticity and correct foot mechanics. It is closer to skiing essentially. We showcase the power of this subtle shift in many demonstrations: try to put a foot up on a high steep or a small wall. Now push through the leg on the wall or step (or push down with your hands on this leg as many do). This is the incorrect push-off movement with too much muscle action. Instead, just switch your bodyweight gently away from the leg on the ground and then pull your leg off the ground behind you. You'll see a massive difference in the efficiency of your movement from this. However, if you are landing too far ahead of yourself on each step (due to poor posture and rhythm) you need more muscular push-off on each step and cannot achieve the ideal movement pattern.

Even if you disregard the biomechanics, a golden rule is to substitute these machines with their artificial movement patterns with real world challenges or simulated real world challenges - slopes, steps, hills, balancing booms (4x4s do a job) and so on.

It is like an anti-gravity treadmill - sure it reduces the forces the athlete is subjected to - but it does not educate him very well on how to be strong enough to cope with the gravity that is actually in place on Earth.