incline on treadmill ---> how much elevation gain?

The escalator motor has to do the same amount of negative work on the escalator stairs regardless of whether the person is standing or "climbing." Once I realized that, it became obvious to me that "climbing" the escalator and climbing the stairs requires the same effort. Having said that, it won't stop me from trying this out on my next trip to the airport. I wouldn't be surprised if I see someone else doing the same thing while I'm there.

PatB wrote:

If experimental science clashes with deductive or intuitive thinking, the fault usually lies with the latter. But not always.

There's an old joke in engineering that the only person that believes the analysis is the analyst, and the only person that doesn't believe the experiment is the test engineer.

I think that the article JT Tupper gave us more details about is:

MCMIKEN DF, DANIELS JT

AEROBIC REQUIREMENTS AND MAXIMUM AEROBIC POWER IN TREADMILL AND TRACK RUNNING

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE 8 (1): 14-17 1976

I don't have my copy of that at home and again, you will need to find a university library to read it.

I don't have the Bassett article at home either, so I can't say how long the hill that they ran on was.

Note that the McMicken/Daniels study was a very quick pace, race pace (or faster) for many of us.

The Bassett et al. study was slower, as I recall more like 7:00 mile pace.

Power for air resistance goes up with the cube of velocity so at 7min pace the power for overcoming aero appears to be negligible (i.e. within the noise of the measurement of oxygen consumption, 1-2% depending on the scientist/equipment). Jack Daniels would be the first scientist I would ask for advice on how to make accurate submaximal VO2 measurements. But the Bassett group is also well respected (Univ. of Wisc.)

If cold hard data or physcis don't convince you, no amount of analogies I could propose will.

ok, I realized that the on-line abstract might have the road distance for Bassett et. al.

It was 950m. see below.

Sorry, the PubMed data base cuts of abstracts at 250 words.

286m/min = 4.77m/sec = 17.16km/hr = 10.66MPH

10MPH = 6:00 min/mile, so this was just a bit quicker than that.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985 Aug;17(4):477-81.

Aerobic requirements of overground versus treadmill running.

Bassett DR Jr, Giese MD, Nagle FJ, Ward A, Raab DM, Balke B.

Abstract: There is general agreement that the oxygen demand of level running is similar for both the treadmill (TM) and overground situations at speeds under 260 m X min-1. However, controversy exists with regard to inclined running. The prevailing view, represented by the ACSM prediction formulas, is that overground hill running is theoretically more costly than inclined treadmill running. This study was designed to investigate the problem from an empirical standpoint. Seven male subjects performed overground and TM running at two grades (0 and 5.7%) over a range of speeds between 136-286 m/min. For the outdoor trials, subjects covered a distance of 950 m at a constant pace, and expired gas was collected over the last 150 m. Matching trials were then performed on the treadmill at the same speed and % grade. Regression lines were calculated for speed vs oxygen consumption (VO2). For TM and overground level running, these were: VO2 (ml.kg-1.min-1)= 0.222 X speed (m.min-1) - 1.33 and VO2 (ml.kg-1.min-1) = 0.202 X speed (m.min-1) + 3.21 respectively. The regression lines from TM and overground inclined running were: VO2 (ml.kg-1.min-1) = 0.237 X speed (m.min-1) + 7.53. and VO2 (ml.kg-1.min-1) = 0.233 X speed (m.min-1) + 7.78 respectively. A 2 X 3 X 2 ANOVA revealed that the differences between mean values for VO2 for level TM running vs level overground running and grade TM running vs grade overground running were not statistically significant. abstract truncated....

oops, I think JTupper shared another study.

This was the one that I knew about.

McMiken DF, Daniels JT.

Med Sci Sports. 1976 Spring;8(1):14-7.

Aerobic requirements and maximum aerobic power in treadmill and track running.

Treadmill and track running comparisons were made on eight track athletes. Oxygen uptake (VO2) during steady-state and maximum aerobic power (VO2 max) were measured in a discrete series of three speeds, and at maximal effort. Running speeds were always in sequence from slowest to fastest. Expired air was collected from the runner by the Douglas-bag method, and analyzed by the Lloyd-Haldane technique. Neither VO2 max nor aerobic requirements of running were significantly different in track and treadmill determinations. There were several correlations: 1) VO2 max with body weight (r = .83 P less than .02), 2) treadmill and track determinations of VO2 max (r = .95, P less than .01) and 3) VO2 ml/kg with running velocity m/min (r = .91, P less than .01) where the regression was linear and may be represented by the equation Y = 5.36 + 0.172X, where Syx = 2.7 m102/kg. It is concluded that treadmill determinations of oxygen uptake may be validly applied to track running in calm air within the range of 180...260 m/min.

dukerdog wrote:

Having said that, it won't stop me from trying this out on my next trip to the airport.

And seeing how lousy airport and airline management is these days, I'm sure you'll have PLENTY of time to try it!

Actually, it's not quite that simple. The distance your treadmill records at an incline is not the same as the flat, horizontal distance. At low inclines, these are roughly the same value, but not so at really high inclines.

If L = the distance as recorded by your treadmill, and i = incline (e.g. 0.05 for 5% incline), then the correct formula to calculate elevation gain (h) is:

h = L*sin*(arctan(i))

as opposed to: h = L * i

Here is the discrepancy in elevation gain between the two formulas at two different inclines, assuming you run 1 mile (as measured by the treadmill):

5% incline: 0.0499 mi (correct formula) vs. 0.05 mi (incorrect formula)

10% incline: 0.0995 mi vs. 0.10 mi

15% incline: 0.148 mi vs. 0.15 mi

40% incline: 0.371 mi vs. 0.40 mi

100% incline: 0.707 mi vs. 1.0 mi