Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Running into 2013
Redball:
--- Quote from: Akima on 28 Dec 2012, 18:15 ---I've never really understood the point of running on an inclined treadmill. You never actually climb, after all, so you're not working against gravity.
--- End quote ---
I don't care that much for treadmills, but my heart and lungs would disagree with your observation about an inclined treadmill. If it's set on an incline, every stride lifts me a fraction of an inch, an inch or more. Compare it to a greater extreme: Walking up a descending escalator in a department store.
Carl-E:
In climbing a descending escalator, keeping position, the lift you get is much less than actual stairs. The force you put out to raise yourself against gravity is (almost) completely negated by the escalator's lowering of your mass as you raise it with your legs. You're not perfectly still, so there's some work done, but it can be as hard on your knees as climbing real stairs is. It's similar with using an inclined treadmill - the damage of misalignment isn't worth the negligible extra work involved.
In running up real hills, there's a downhill to make up for the misalignments of climbing. And it's almost as hard on you as the climbing is...
Redball:
I'm still puzzled. I'm comparing the work done, not whether it's good for me and my joints. If I'm lifting my 190 (dammit!) pounds six inches against gravity several times a minute, my body and I don't care if the system comprised of Bob and a stair or treadmill is in motion or not, i.e., aboard an escalator or a Dreamliner flying between 0-36k feet. What am I missing? Aren't I expending 95 foot pounds with each lift?
Bluesummers:
--- Quote from: Redball on 29 Dec 2012, 08:20 ---What am I missing? Aren't I expending 95 foot pounds with each lift?
--- End quote ---
Yay, physics! My turn!
Your work done while walking/running up the down escalator (assuming you actually make it to the top) is actually more than just walking up stairs of the same height, but not because of a transfer of kinetic to potential energy. It's because you're moving your limbs at a faster rate to compensate against the escalator's direction.
Similarly, using a Stairmaster expends energy, but not in the same way as actually walking/running up stationary stairs. You're lifting your body against gravity by a few inches, then lowered in between steps as the stairmaster moves. Most energy expended is due to the rotating motion of your limbs, not working against gravity.
Inclined treadmills as compared to walking uphill is also the same theory. It's the movement of your limbs that burns the majority of the calories. The caloric burn rate can't even be compared to running on flat ground, since the only calories burned doing that are due to your body accelerating its mass to a certain speed, and rotating limb movement.
Think of any exercise where your body doesn't change its position in a room, as similar to running in place. Your body is expending energy by moving, but your overall position doesn't change. You're not moving the whole system, just certain parts with the system.
Combine that with the unusual design of an inclined treadmill, fooling your body into putting extra force in order to walk up a hill that isn't really there, is quite detrimental to your body. It puts unneeded strain on your ankles and metatarsals.
TL;DR (Here's the conclusion): putting aside the energy expended by basically "moving in place", you're not burning any calories unless you're changing your vertical position relative to the earth, because it's earth's gravitational forces you're working against. And if you're on that dreamliner at 36,000 feet, and it's assumed to be traveling at a constant velocity, with no acceleration, it's no different that exercising on solid ground.
Enjoy. ^_^
idontunderstand:
So you can basically burn just as many calories, it's just a different movement (which may or may not be unnatural and in the end harmful for your body).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version