Is there any point on setting an incline on a treadmill?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Incline Point
AI Thread Summary
Running on an inclined treadmill presents a greater challenge than on a flat surface, primarily due to the additional work required to counteract gravity. While the runner's level remains unchanged, the physiological demands increase as the body must exert more effort to lift itself against the incline. This results in a higher energy expenditure, as each step involves lifting the body upward, even though the treadmill moves the runner back down, preventing any net elevation gain. The body's mechanics are optimized for level surfaces, leading to inefficiencies when running uphill. Thus, the perception of increased difficulty is not just psychological; it stems from the actual physical work involved in maintaining balance and overcoming gravitational forces on an incline.
Tyro
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Since the runner's level does not actually change, they are not doing any work against gravity. Their total output wattage -- if it can be measured -- should be the same regardless of inclination.

Yet, running on an inclined treadmill seems more difficult. Is the difference purely in the runner's head, physiological (muscles work less efficiently at that configuration) or am I missing a physical reason why the runner actually does more work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm going to make a guess

based on common sense. That people can put out more work when they're walking uphill therefore the treadmill can be set to a higher force level. When they're on a level platform they have to use their arms to limit their motion, on the "hill" they have their body weight too.
 
I believe that the trick here is that you're doing work on the treadmill since your feet are pushing down on it, they're moving along, and work is a force through a distance

Or maybe you could look at it like it's the same as walking up a stationary hill, relatively

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, though
 
I see several factors at work here.

First, the work our bodies do is not entirely transmitted to the outside environment. Energy is expended doing work on our bodies in order to generate a force! For example, pushing on a wall is a lot harder than leaning against it.

Secondly, our bodies are not stationary as we walk on a treadmill; at the very least, we are moving one leg forward at all times. If we're on an incline, then we have to do (more) work against gravity to move our leg up the incline.

Also, I imagine our bodies are optimized for travel over level surfaces, so we probably waste extra energy when walking an incline.
 
If the treadmill is on a tilt, then every time you take a step forward, you lift your body upward and so do more work than if it were level. Of course, you don't go upward because the treadmill then moves you back downward but you don't "regain" the work you have done. If you walk up a flight of stairs and then take an elevator back down, you have still done the work of walking up stairs!
 
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
If the treadmill is on a tilt, then every time you take a step forward, you lift your body upward and so do more work than if it were level. Of course, you don't go upward because the treadmill then moves you back downward but you don't "regain" the work you have done. If you walk up a flight of stairs and then take an elevator back down, you have still done the work of walking up stairs!

This is exactly correct. Consider the fact that if you stand still on a horizontal treadmill, you will remain stationary. Do the same on an inclined treadmill, and you will roll off the back end. Extra work is required from you to counteract the effect of gravity trying to move you downward and, therefore, rearward. The steeper the incline, the more rapidly an inactive person would roll off, therefore the more work must be done to counteract this effect.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top