I just did a 4 mile run on Tempus Fugit.
I set the treadmill to 6.7 MPH and let auto incline do the work.
As we know, this course is quite flat. At about 3.2 miles in there was a short spike up and down. But for the most part, flat.
Here is my chart from the run:
Why does it have me showing a steady incline over the entire 4 miles?
It looks like you got a steady .75% grade built into the course, when I run it I get about 37ā over 4 miles, so the difference between us is about 157 feet, which would be .75% igrade
Iām confused. Shouldnāt my elevation chart just look like the first 6-7 KM of this since thatās how far I ran? Why would it be any different?
Why would our runs on the same course yield different elevation results?
I thought that running doesnāt use the course gradient.
But one of our super experienced runners such as @Run.10K.Every.Day would be able to tell you how it really works.
Youāll get variations for various reasons.
Mainly each treadmill is different. Some treadmills can increase gradient in 0.5% increments whilst others do it in singular digits.
Therefore if the on screen gradient is 0.7% the first treadmill will be recording elevation whilst the other wonāt.
also dependant on how you are accessing auto incline will yield different results. There are different ways of getting auto incline. Thereās the Wahoo Kickr Run which can access this natively in Zwift.
Thereās also other apps that can activate it. Die example QZ Domyos can simulate incline control but thereās two ways of doing it. Each will give different elevation results.
Thanks @Run.10K.Every.Day
Iām using the QZ app, Iāve renamed my device to KICKR RUN so it essentially simulates that of the Wahoo Kickr Run.
But all this to the side, Iām still confused.
What is the elevation gain that I see on my results actually meant to be showing? Itās clearly not showing the course gradient because itās not a steady slow climb. But it also doesnāt seem to reflect my treadmillās actions as my treadmill was shifting around slightly throughout with a small spike around the 5k mark.
I guess maybe I should test a rolling hill course just for a more clear result, but even with this one, Iām confused as to why itās showing me as running a steady incline all the way through.
Chris, the image from ZI has a much different horizontal scale that Strava shows. The āspikeā at 2.5k is about 8 meters of gain, the graph Iām attaching shows my elevation gain over the first 7 miles in more detail than my Strava one.
In my case I am using QZ Beta to match the course profile. My treadmill increments at .5%, and I have built in a .25% increase to QZ. This lets me get very close, normally within 2%, for the āadvertisedā elevation of most Watopia routes.
Check under āAdvanced Settingsā and see if you have a āZwift Inclination Offsetā set
Also, on your next run, compare the QZ Incline Tile to what your treadmill is claiming. I also use the Sauce App and verify the total gain as Iām running. That is available on the QZ Tiles as well, but I like having it in front of me on Zwift
Thereās something a little odd going on with the elevation. Below is my Zwift and Strava results from yesterday. Zwift reports 776ft of elevation with Strava reporting 387ft. Zwift is passing this data to Strava so not sure why itās being displayed incorrectly.
Checking back out coincides with changing to the Kickr Run method for auto incline.
Using the older method they matched.
Odd
I just checked my last run, Tour of Tewit Well, between Zwift and Strava there was a 1 foot difference (Iāve noticed that between Sauce and QZ I usually have a 1-2 foot difference). That was on 1.82
There a definite issue. Seems world/route specific. Here two of my runs a day apart.
I rarely touch 100m of elevation during a run but look at the difference here.
You have two helping you who have loads of experience. I hardly ever use elevation and certainly donāt use auto incline.
I believe the answer to your question is that the results are showing you your cumulative elevation. The results canāt show you the gradient profile of the run you completed because flat and negative are both the same thing in this result, that being both are zero elevation.
I believe the reason you see a line gradually going up is as @Bryan_McKenney_Dirt suggests you have gradient built into the run. In other words you appear to be running uphill even when running on the flat.
Interesting that one value is almost exactly 2X the other
Thought you were onto something there but just checked another one and itās almost 4 times greater.
Iāve gone back over my activities.
Itās route specific. I run the same routes weekly and on Fridays the elevation is totally off.
Been happening over a year.
Which routes? I can add them to my list.
Innsbruck - Innsbruckring.
Carry on to 10k as depending on where you start thereāll be a bit of incline after the route finish at 5.7 miles to 6.2 miles. Not much but a little.
And enjoy the hill at 5k. 8%.
Try to take it at the same pace as the rest of your run. 
You will notice that route starts you at 225m the second you start running.
It looks like the Zwift slider is showing the āactualā elevation, the āring should top out around 1,000ā on Zwift, but with a gain of 256ā (I got 252ā on the 14th). My Zwift and Strava graphs both show me going from 740ish to 1,000ish on that same run.
As for that hill, I was running a negative split run (.1MPH increase every kilometer) 
Well spotted chaps.
Thatāll be one of the many oddities of Zwift.
Ah well that answers that question. Itās a running total!
And I guess that means that the elevation is showing what my treadmill is reporting. I have an offset set to 2.5% because of the slight uneven ground my treadmill sits on, and my best way Iāve found to replicate outdoor running. Same effort at 2.5% on treadmill is same effort of outdoor flat.
Does this mean that the fit file generated and uploaded to Strava/Garmin etc. is going to show elevation as it relates to my actual treadmillās non realistic amount versus what is happening on Zwift?
