Measuring difference in Exercising in a Flat Surface vs one with Slope

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on estimating the difference in effort required to walk a fixed distance on a flat surface versus a slope, utilizing the Pandolf equation for metabolic rate calculations. The equation incorporates variables such as weight, load, speed, and grade to quantify energy expenditure. Participants emphasize the efficiency of running for time-constrained workouts, suggesting that running provides superior cardiovascular benefits compared to other activities like swimming or cycling. The conversation highlights the importance of aerobic exercise for health benefits and the need for a balanced approach to fitness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Pandolf equation for metabolic rate estimation
  • Basic knowledge of exercise physiology principles
  • Familiarity with aerobic versus anaerobic exercise benefits
  • Concept of energy expenditure in physical activities
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Pandolf equation and its applications in exercise science
  • Explore aerobic exercise techniques and their health benefits
  • Study the impact of different terrains on metabolic rates during exercise
  • Investigate the effects of overtraining and optimal workout frequencies
USEFUL FOR

Fitness enthusiasts, exercise physiologists, personal trainers, and anyone interested in optimizing their workout efficiency and understanding the physiological impacts of different exercise modalities.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,773
Reaction score
13,009
TL;DR
Trying to cut down on exercise time by climbing stairs vs walking on flat surface
Ok, so I'm trying to estimate by some accounts, just informally for now, how much more effort is needed to walk a fixed distance D , first along a flat surface, then by climbing stairs.

Since my undergrad Physics is kind of rusty, please forgive my ignorance in this regard. I'm thinking of using Potential Energy ( the difference between initial, final points ), to estimate the difference of effort, I guess in carrying my mass about. I am assuming going in a constant slope, though I'm curious as to how the slope level would make a difference.

Is this a reasonable way of estimating the difference in level of difficulty between walking along a flat surface and walking along a slope?
I'm ultimately trying to cut down on exercise time without cutting down on benefits ( measured informally for now).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could start with the Pandolf equation. It should get you in the ballpark at least.

M = 1.5*W + 2.8*(W+L)*(L/W)^2 + n*(W+L)*(1.5*V^2+0.35*V*G)

M = metabolic rate, watts
W = subject weight, kg
L = load carried, kg
V = speed of walking, m/s -- range tested = 0.0-1.0 m/s (0.0-2.2 MPH)
G = grade, %
n = terrain factor (n=1.0 for treadmill)

In my own experience the most efficient way to exercise in terms of time is running. Continuous runs or intervals. Twenty minutes of that is like an hour on a bicycle or at least four hours of walking. It does kind of depend on the health of your knees though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
WWGD said:
I'm ultimately trying to cut down on exercise time without cutting down on benefits
If so, then you need to study more exercise physiology and less physics. If you want cardiovascular and health benefits, you need to work out aerobically. The optimal effort for that is the hardest effort at which you can carry on a conversation speaking in full sentences without straining to breathe. Working out at higher effort levels puts you into strength training, which has a different set of benefits.
JT Smith said:
In my own experience the most efficient way to exercise in terms of time is running.
It can be argued that swimming, ice skating, and cross country skiing are a little better for general aerobic fitness.

It really gets down to the question of just how fit and healthy you want to be. Running three miles five days per week will give you good general health and fitness, and you would be able to run a 5K race without embarrassing yourself. Increasing that to 30 miles per week will put you in shape to run a half marathon, and 45 miles per week if you want to run a full marathon.

There is an upper limit to how much exercise you can do before learning the negative effects of overtraining, but few people find that limit. I can recommend RunningAhead.com as a good forum if you want to run: https://www.runningahead.com/forums.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and WWGD
jrmichler said:
It can be argued that swimming, ice skating, and cross country skiing are a little better for general aerobic fitness.

Maybe, I can't say. But in terms of time spent I'd still vote for running. I don't have any data, it's just my gut feeling.

I used to swim a lot and also did quite a bit of self-propelled skiing. Both are excellent ways to exercise but they do require specialized environments. Ice skating too. For bicycling all you need besides a bicycle is a road or trail. For running and walking you just need shoes and some sort of semi-horizontal surface.

You can run in place barefoot really vigorously right in your home while watching T.V. and get an awesome workout in about ten minutes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
JT Smith said:
Maybe, I can't say. But in terms of time spent I'd still vote for running. I don't have any data, it's just my gut feeling.

I used to swim a lot and also did quite a bit of self-propelled skiing. Both are excellent ways to exercise but they do require specialized environments. Ice skating too. For bicycling all you need besides a bicycle is a road or trail. For running and walking you just need shoes and some sort of semi-horizontal surface.

You can run in place barefoot really vigorously right in your home while watching T.V. and get an awesome workout in about ten minutes.
Yes, I've done some running/" bycicling" in place while laying on the floor for 10 minutes
I get a bit of a sweat and it knocks me out to sleep.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K