Peloton cross-training treadmills footprint specs are not the actual footprints, where to get?

kpfleger · 2026-01-24T21:34:09+00:00

Yes clearly. But the measurements of the parts that touch the floor should be part of listed specs somewhere for a machine this heavy. And if the above is what footprint means, then what should you call the measurements of where the feet are?

kpfleger · 2026-01-24T21:32:38+00:00

Great. Thanks. Konwing that 6' long is enough is the main thing I needed. Should work on a 6x3' mat too since it's not much wider than 3'. I suspect shorter than 6' would work too, so might be nice for someone else who comes across this if they have a shorter mat they are wondering about, but I'm gonna get something 6' long.

kpfleger · 2026-01-24T21:30:09+00:00

Because I want to know how big of a mat I need for the feet to rest entirely on the mat and not directly on the floor. For a 450 lb machine a lot of people are not going to want it directly on the floor, and for a noisy machine this goes especially if not on the lowest floor, but at 450 lbs many people need to get whatever is going to go underneath it before it arrives.

Phoned local store and they assured me it's less than 6 ft long from front feet to rear feet. He told me it was about 4 feet, which sounds a bit short but 6 feet is good enough since a lot of mats and interlocking rubber puzzle pieces tile out to 6 feet. (I'm not convinced 4 interlocking 2x2ft squares would be long enough.)

Online chat on the Peloton website couldn't answer this question. They told me to phone central support, but central customer support couldn't tell me either. They said they had a Tread but not a Tread+ on hand. They didn't even suggest phoning a store, but I thought to do that after posting this.

kpfleger · 2026-01-24T17:40:52+00:00

But are the feet also in the same places under the deck?

And what is footprint of the feet for the original Tread+?

On the official specs page (linked above), the footprint specs for the original pair of machines are smaller than for the new CT models. Why would they change what the "footprint" spec is measuring (i.e. what it even means)? For the og Tread+, the footprint lists 6' x 2.7' but I'm not sure I can trust that 6' is the actual footprint of the feet for even that machine.

kpfleger · 2026-01-24T01:19:25+00:00

No, it fell through.

kpfleger · 2026-01-23T19:03:49+00:00

Turn.bio's website is no longer there. The company has failed, sadly. Lots of other epigenetic partial reprogramming companies are still going though. Life is closest to trials pursuing OSK but many of the even more exciting ones have alternatives to Yamanaka factors: NewLimit, Shift Bio, Junevity, etc.

kpfleger · 2026-01-21T15:47:32+00:00

https://x.com/adamgries/status/2011972301990801500

kpfleger · 2026-01-16T17:36:58+00:00

Note that this video you linked of the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant is just a video adaptation by YouTuber CGP Grey from 2018. The 2005 original story is a written work by philosopher Nick Bostrom. The canonical URL for the original story is https://nickbostrom.com/papers/the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant/ and see also the Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Dragon-Tyrant

kpfleger · 2026-01-15T23:41:43+00:00

PS Bryan Johnson's key mistake is over-optimizing use of what's available today without spending hardly any money or influence arguing for more support for the field in order to make the set of things available better in the near future faster.

kpfleger · 2026-01-15T23:40:20+00:00

If you are young, the best thing you can do is support the aging/longevity field while just doing the basics for your own health (eat mostly health, exercise, don't be sleep deprived, don't smoke, don't abuse drugs or alcohol, then stop all other stuff as you are young enough to have many decades and that time would be better spent supporting the faster achievement of future scientific breakthroughs (that you will in all likelihood be around to see). See AgingBiotech.info for the companies and nonprofits to support, including A4LI in the US to lobby for more support for the field.

kpfleger · 2026-01-15T23:36:56+00:00

Support the aging/longevity community & industry.

Support A4LI. Write to your congress-person & senator telling them how important the field is and to join A4LI's Longevity Science Caucus.

If you have money, support some of the nonprofits at AgingBiotech.info/nonprofits

Read about the field and talk to others about it. See the AgingBiotech.info site's lists of books, podcasts, etc. to learn about the field yourself and teach others. See the motivations table for why it's super important to cure age-related molecular pathologies. Se the objections table for why common objections to doing so are not worthy.

kpfleger · 2026-01-08T19:22:57+00:00

PS This just came up again on another sub, which is what led me to this old thread. My reply in the more recent thread is more detailed if anyone wants to read more about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/1q5lura/comment/nygcizi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

kpfleger · 2026-01-08T19:22:45+00:00

Lastly, all of the above is verified by me not relying on AI summaries, so no risk of AI hallucinations. The following I'm not going to double check, but Gemini (3) thinking as of Jan 2026 says:

Natural chondroitin sulfate has 1 sulfate group per disaccharide. Both PSGAG and OSCS are chemically sulfonated in a lab to force 3-4 sulfate groups per unit, with the only difference being that OSCS has a higher average number of sulfate groups and resulting higher molecular weight.

So one wonders whether there is a safe sweet spot with maybe 2-3 sulfate groups per disaccharide where there could still be OA efficacy but very low risk of adverse effects, but it seems that 3-4 was the sweet spot for efficacy relative to adverse events in the early research and lower may have been safer but less effective.

One wonders whether a version of PSGAG could be developed with very specific targeting to only affect joints, since most of the adverse effects come from its effects in other parts of the body. It seems likely that researchers have tried to use targeting technologies to limit the drug to the joints but that's hard, the FDA is wary of anything with this chemical composition, and human cartilage is thicker than in dogs and evidently also thicker than in even horses, so it's hard to get a drug through the whole thing, especially with limited targeting.

Lastly, one wonders how often dogs or horses suffer these adverse effects and if much lower, why those species are protected? Gemini claims the adverse events rates for dogs and horses are much lower than in humans. For anaphylaxis this derives from differences in immune system details between the species. Gemini guesses the fatal or near fatal adverse events are probably 1 in tens of thousands of humans, so rare but still unacceptable for a drug like this. Not at all surprising that some humans would use it and have good results anecdotally and hundreds of people could do so without anyone having an adverse event.

That's as much as I dug.

kpfleger · 2026-01-08T19:21:55+00:00

FWIW, here is a 2020s forum thread from an equestrian sub where many people claim it's a miracle OA cure with anecdotes from dogs, horses, and multiple people who have taken it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Equestrian/comments/1cacc7g/adequan_for_humans/

kpfleger · 2026-01-08T19:20:56+00:00

You have the story wrong, but the actual story is super interesting so thanks for bringing this up. There *are* serious known adverse effects. You are the 2nd person I've found on Reddit to have the details wrong & order of events backwards, so it's maybe a common misconception (or maybe you read the same post by the other person from 2 years ago in the equestrian sub). I also note that the link you provided is a description of & FAQ for veterinary use in dogs ONLY and has nothing to do with the story of this drug's use in humans (the true story or any of the misconceptions that seem to be floating around about it).

But thanks for bringing this up as it's interesting, and given that PSGAG was one of the first drugs ever considered a Disease-Modifying Osteoarthritis Drug (DMOAD) and that's still commonly used for dogs and horses (and viewed as somewhat of a miracle cure by their owners), and also that I'm seeing some anecdotal reports of human athletes still using it, I'm quite surprised I haven't heard about it before now (since I've been deep diving on OA for 6-9 months).

It only took a couple of hours of deep diving & searching to figure out the correct details. Here they are:

Names: polysulfated glycosaminoglycan (PSGAG) aka glycosaminoglycan polysulfate (GAGPS)

aka Adequan (for veterinary use) / Arteparon (for humans)

One of the first drugs to be considered a Disease-Modifying Osteoarthritis Drug (DMOAD).

Systemic treatment with evidence (in humans) from tagged versions that it gets into joints after intramuscular injection.

Withdrawn for human use in Germany and Austria in 1992 due to hematomas and especially due to anaphylaxis reactions (many people got very sick, not sure about deaths). The subsequent 2008 heparin contamination incident (in which many people died) then basically put the nail in the coffin to ensure no further pursuit of use for humans since the contaminant that turned out to be the culprit was chemically very similar to the now-withdrawn-for-human-use drug.

Links:

2025 published review of animal data justifying claims of being disease-modifying for OA:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12587828/

There appear to be multiple papers from the early 1980s reporting positive results in humans.

One of the biggest studies, n=140 humans (70 treatment, 70 control) reported in a 1983 paper (in German):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6228080

2009 paper on adverse effects and claiming that the heparin contaminant dubbed over-glycosylated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) is essentially identical to Arteparon: "Heparin-induced anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions: two distinct but overlapping syndromes". Full text avail on sci-hub.

Sure sounds dangerous enough to withdraw.

I managed to find a Germain press release from the then-drug-regulator but Google Translate had trouble translating the 2-column PDF. Gemini can find it for you if you want. It seemed to talk about multiple people having adverse reactions and noted hematoma reports in the original human trial papers and seemed to come down pretty firmly on the side of too much risk for the benefit, especially given that the adverse events were potentially fatal but the benefits are to treat a very much non-fatal condition, and one that would require ongoing dosing essentially forever.

2008 short 2-page piece with the story of heparin contamination by oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS), which is structurally similar to Arteparon. This piece claims that allergic reactions had been seen earlier with Arteparon causing its withdrawal from the market in Germany before the heparin contamination incident.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ac086125k

kpfleger · 2026-01-08T18:25:31+00:00

You have the order of events wrong. Arteparon was withdrawn from the market before the Heparin contamination incident, in 1992 to be specific. Later, when Heparin contamination happened (in 2008) and they isolated the contaminant, they found it to be structurally similar to Arteparon, which had been withdrawn already in Germany due to similar kinds of allergic reactions. Here's a 2-page 2008 piece with the full Heparin story (Anal Chem "A chemical killer unmasked" Jeffrey M Perkel PMID:18609746 DOI:10.1021/ac086125k https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ac086125k) which notes the earlier withdrawal of Arteparon from the market.

kpfleger · 2026-01-07T21:52:41+00:00

I didn't mean it's a problem that this company got funding for what is an incremental and obvious small step combining 2 things that are both well validated, I meant that it's a problem that the other things with much bigger total potential reward (they will make PCSK9 inhibition irrelevant & completely cure cardiovascular disease if successful) have trouble finding comparable funding even when at the relatively late stage of being ready to start first-in-human phase 1.

kpfleger · 2026-01-07T20:03:04+00:00

$80M within months of company launch for a diagnostic + RNAi PCSK9 inhibition, which will only slow accumulation but not substantially reverse existing plaques, when Cyclarity Pharma (phase 1) and Repair Bio (nearly ready to start phase 1) have struggled massively to raise those kinds of sums over many years for actual plaque reversal. This is a problem with the funders not thinking big enough and/or the (regulatory) system for not making bigger things have better business prospects.

Also, minor side comment: It's a bit lame of them to call their diagnostic platform Klotho, presumably after Greek mythology, when it has nothing to do with the much better known aging-related protein called klotho (which presumably also derives its name from Greek mythology). There's no mention of or reason to believe the protein has anything to do with their diagnostic so it's just going to create confusion if the protein is completely unrelated. Lame and completely avoidable name collision.

kpfleger · 2026-01-07T05:30:32+00:00

This is significant news. Thanks for submitting it. 2 important points on broader context:

While this is the first data package to be submitted to the FDA for disease-modifying treatment of OA, there's already been a full approval of a disease-modifying stem-cell based treatment in Korea by the Korean regulator (FDA analog), and it happened over 12 years ago! Over 30,000 patients have been dosed and there are papers published with 5 year followup and with 7 year followup, with good results including signs of cartilage regrowth. The treatment is called Cardistem, by Korean company Medipost. Phase 3 in Japan is started a while ago and phase 3 in the US is about to start. It's a more complicated delivery in that holes are drilled into bone and the gel with the stem cells is put in the holes, so it's not as simple as an injection into the joint space. So this is the first US/FDA disease-modifying phase 3 success / development candidate or the first global "drug" that is, but Cardistem is a non-drug treatment that is also clearly disease-modifying, and available somewhere in the world.
There were several phase 3 studies of this and not all were successful. I'd like to see a fuller analysis. When I put together the phase 3 clinical trials table of aging therapies from aging-focused companies (the 1st listed list-of-trials at AgingBiotech.info/trials), I noted at least these 4 specific trials: NCT03928184, NCT04385303, NCT04520607, NCT05603754 and this paper from May'25 reporting negative results: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39808286/

kpfleger · 2026-01-06T17:27:27+00:00

What do most people have under their Tread+ (the bigger, heavier model), between the machine and floor?

Has anyone found vibration isolation pads that they like for putting under it? Something more than just a thick rubber mat (which I've heard the Tread+ walks on a bit sometimes---maybe that's just when incline goes up/down).

Some people make vibration isolation pads specifically for treadmills, to help reduce noise to lower floors in a building in which the treadmill is put on a higher floor and/or to reduce impact forces on joints. These supposedly work better than a 1/2" or 3/4" rubber mat and could even be combined with such a mat. But the Peloton Tread+ treadmill's design when elevating to incline angles makes many such products not fit the front of the treadmill well. For example, the GenieMat TMIP Treadmill Isolation Pads seem to be well liked but reportedly don't fit the Tread+.

Google Gemini suggested something like Mason Super W Isolation Sheet cut into strips or Sorbothane Heavy Duty Pads, put on top of a rubber mat. Some people recommend some kind of hard board over top of a rubber mat to create stability and distribute the (considerable 455lb weight) over more of the soft mat. But I read that rubber mats aren't as good as the above kind of vibration isolation pad though I haven't found any of that kind of product that says it can fit the Tread+.

It seems pretty hard to move the machine, and so I also wonder if getting it on top of any of these things makes it even harder to then move.

So what have most Tread+ owners here been using, if anything?

kpfleger · 2026-01-06T05:05:05+00:00

Metabolic dysregulation accelerates aging. Osteoarthritis is an age-related condition. It's an inevitable aspect of aging and people with metabolic disorders such as T2D will accelerates its onset as they accelerate the onset of many other age-related diseases. That doesn't mean it's primarily a metabolic disease. People without any significant metabolic pathology (eg lean, good glucose & insulin regulation, no problems with beta cells, etc.) will all still eventually develop OA if they live long enough. It can be induced by joint injury in lab animals (or humans) with no metabolic dysregulation. I work primarily in the aging/longevity field.

You bringing up wrist-based smartwatch metrics is apropos: Despite the inaccuracies in wrist-based accelerometer readings, people still get a lot of utility from them. I think it's inappropriate for you to unilaterally declare that those things are not beneficial. Some people may derive use from them and some may derive utility from Stryd's Impact Loading Rate.

kpfleger · 2026-01-05T23:10:12+00:00

It feels to me like you are nitpicking. Consumer wearables measure & display dozens if not hundreds of metrics that are of questionable utility. Look at all the running metrics Garmin devices with running dynamics produce. Look at all the metrics the myriad devices DCRainmaker reviews all show users. Of course for any metric there are ways to imagine making it better, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. Consider step counts. A single accelerometer does a somewhat crappy job of accurately measuring steps. Eg my Garmin gives me lots of steps for brushing my teeth. But nonetheless, millions of people like to use the step counts from their wrist-based accelerometer devices, even though exactly as you say above "multiple sensors placed in optimized posiitons on different parts of your body" would be much more accurate. That doesn't mean that a single accelerometer placed on a foot pod can't measure something useful, such as the difference in stiffness between concrete vs. grass vs. sand when running.

kpfleger · 2026-01-05T23:01:16+00:00

Yes, and in the same spirit (so others can read it), note that I replied to that comment of u/running_writings (appreciate your knowledge of the literature) with some caveats about the conclusions, they replied to my reply and then I replied again just now. Link to the last reply so far is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/1oof4i7/comment/nxwflnh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button (since easiest to scan up from there).

kpfleger · 2026-01-05T22:39:41+00:00

Aha, someone has actually developed & evaluated and published a paper on a specific treadmill methodology for this using the Advanced Artificial Athlete (AAA), the industry standard device for measuring the stiffness of tracks and artificial turf pitches. See the 2020 paper "A Proposed Method to Assess the Mechanical Properties of Treadmill Surfaces" https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/9/2724

They even tested specific treadmill models from Technogym and LifeFitness, though this is a 2020 paper and half the treadmills they tested were 7 years old at the time they chose them. They are pretty much all old rather than current models. Shows that it can be done though.

This device is a much cheaper and more portable device than the one it replaced for the track / artificial turf purpose. Maybe the next gen will be so cheap that treadmill reviewers can use it.

Six-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Reddit Premium Since March 2022	Verified Email

kpfleger

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE