treadmill incline question

tameka1220

Ok, so yesterday. I posed the question about walking versus running. I heard a very interesting thing and wanted to get others insight. I'm gonna try it today.

Incline on the treadmill all the way up or at least to 10 for 2 minutes, moderate walk, maybe 3.4. Then sprint no incline for 1 min at 5.7. Total time 50 mins.

Have any of you all seen better results when using incline on the treadmill for walking???

Thanks Again!!

just4peachy

Depends on the type of results you're asking about. I definitely see better results in my muscle definition when I work in some incline/hills. I definitely see terrible results on my mile time when I add them.

tameka1220

Depends on the type of results you're asking about. I definitely see better results in my muscle definition when I work in some incline/hills. I definitely see terrible results on my mile time when I add them.

Thanks!

I wanna see definition results for sure! Thats my goal right now to see a change in my body form, not so much the scale. I'm done with that thing LOL!

NicolaGoodyear

Hey hun
me and my husband do 20 mins on treadmill full incline at 15....walking at about 5-6 pace and our rule is your not allowed to holdon at all its a killer works fantastic for us!! xxx

MissingMinnesota

My trainer had me slow down and increase the incline since I was burning too much muscle when I was just doing running.

tameka1220

Hey hun
me and my husband do 20 mins on treadmill full incline at 15....walking at about 5-6 pace and our rule is your not allowed to holdon at all its a killer works fantastic for us!! xxx

Really??!! Wooow 5-6 pace is a killer!! But did you all see drastic results and what kind (how soon did u see results from when u started doing it)? u think 50 minutes will be an overkill?

Thanks!

tameka1220

My trainer had me slow down and increase the incline since I was burning too much muscle when I was just doing running.

burning too much muscle?? interesting... did u "see" good results when u switched? as far as how your body "look"

tondalea

Thats probably losing muscle from doing too much cardio and not enough strentgh training.

lindzbindz

i have recently found out how awesome the incline is! i used to walk at a 3.7 with a 3.0 incline. but my friend convinced me to walk at a 3.0 with a 10.0 incline. what a difference! even tho my pace was slower my heart rate was faster, i sweat more, and i burned twice the calories! even with out the interval running that your talking about it works awesome!

and its not as hard as you would think!

bosanka

I have been comparing my results for a long time- calorie / time wise.

If i'm " only " trying to do speed- and little or no incline- i burn way less calories - than if i even walk a 3 mph- on 10-12% incline

so that's for the ' calorie burn " from my experience. And i have been logging it for many many times and it never failed - always same result- more calories with incline. no matter " how much faster i would run - well i didn't run on a 8-10 mph- but other than that.. that's what i have noticed.

In an article i have read - it explained about runing vs walking.

If you are " sprint runing " you can't do that for a long time- so - with that type of calorie burn you are going to burn more glucose -

With walking- you keep at a moderate pace and do it for a longer time - you can actually " dip " into the fat reserves and melt fat-

Nothing against running- but - it seems like walking and moderate jogging do it better on the long run ..

MissingMinnesota

Thats probably losing muscle from doing too much cardio and not enough strentgh training.

I do enough strength training since my training sessions with my trainer are strength training. It was that I went down in lbs but stayed the same in my body fat % but I was preparing for a 5k and trying to get my time down so I was doing too much cardio so she wanted me atleast 2 of the 5 days I do cardio to slow the pace and increase the incline. I have my weigh in on Friday so I don't know the results yet.

Azdak

Intensity is intensity is intensity.

While there are obviously some minor differences in the specific muscular responses to incline walking or running, there is nothing inherently "unique" about one activity vs the other.

Running can be an effective exercise because it is a high-intensity activity, even at some slower speeds (although I am not so sure about the recent trend to "run" at speeds like 3.5, 4.0 mph, etc).

Walking on level ground is a safe and comfortable exercise, but it is a low-intensity activity--even at speeds or 4.0-4.5 mph.

The intensity of walking can be dramatically increased by walking at an incline. By finding the right combination of speed and incline, many people can achieve an intensity equal to what they could by running. For those individuals who cannot run, or who do not like to run, this can be of crucial benefit to fitness gains and weight loss.

However, from an intensity and calorie-burning standpoint, there is NO DIFFERENCE between running or incline walking, if you are working at the same intensity. There are obvious differences in the impact shock between the two activities, and the muscle fiber recruitment patterns, but no practical difference in substrate utilization or caloric expenditure. For a "trainer" to claim that incline walking at 10 METs, for example, "burns less muscle" than running at 10 METs is breathtakingly ignorant--in more ways than I can count.

My experience is that the secret to incline walking is going "slow and steep". It's the incline that gives you the intensity boost, so set the speed down low enough that you can handle a 10%-15% incline. It does take a little time to adapt to the specific muscular demands of walking up the incline. Then you can bump up the speed if necessary.

Needless to say, you CANNOT hold on to the handrails while incline walking--period. That negates the whole exercise. If you cannot walk without holding on, then you must first decrease the speed and then, if necessary, the incline, until you find a combination that you can tolerate without holding on--then work up from there.

I think many people might find incline walking a nice alternative. I don't do it anymore, but it was very helpful when I was losing weight. I stumbled on it by accident. I was trying to really ramp up my cardio minutes, but could only run a limited amount. I was rotating my main cardio between my stairclimber, running, and a cross trainer at the fitness center. Just to burn some extra calories, a couple of times a week I started walking on my treadmill at night while watching TV--either as an adjunct to my regular cardio workout earlier or as an "active rest" day. I figured that rather than sitting on the couch, I might as well burn a couple of hundred extra calories. Being the competitive sort that I am, I found that I had trouble holding back, so I kept bumping up the incline, just to see the calorie counter go up. At some point I started noticing that at the higher levels, my caloric expenditure was getting close to what it was when I was running. But, because of the lower impact, I could keep up the walking for an hour, while then I could only run for 20-30 minutes.

So while it didn't turn out to be the "easy" workout I had planned, I came away a big fan of incline walking.

You just can't hold on.

tameka1220

Intensity is intensity is intensity.

While there are obviously some minor differences in the specific muscular responses to incline walking or running, there is nothing inherently "unique" about one activity vs the other.

Running can be an effective exercise because it is a high-intensity activity, even at some slower speeds (although I am not so sure about the recent trend to "run" at speeds like 3.5, 4.0 mph, etc).

Walking on level ground is a safe and comfortable exercise, but it is a low-intensity activity--even at speeds or 4.0-4.5 mph.

The intensity of walking can be dramatically increased by walking at an incline. By finding the right combination of speed and incline, many people can achieve an intensity equal to what they could by running. For those individuals who cannot run, or who do not like to run, this can be of crucial benefit to fitness gains and weight loss.

However, from an intensity and calorie-burning standpoint, there is NO DIFFERENCE between running or incline walking, if you are working at the same intensity. There are obvious differences in the impact shock between the two activities, and the muscle fiber recruitment patterns, but no practical difference in substrate utilization or caloric expenditure. For a "trainer" to claim that incline walking at 10 METs, for example, "burns less muscle" than running at 10 METs is breathtakingly ignorant--in more ways than I can count.

My experience is that the secret to incline walking is going "slow and steep". It's the incline that gives you the intensity boost, so set the speed down low enough that you can handle a 10%-15% incline. It does take a little time to adapt to the specific muscular demands of walking up the incline. Then you can bump up the speed if necessary.

Needless to say, you CANNOT hold on to the handrails while incline walking--period. That negates the whole exercise. If you cannot walk without holding on, then you must first decrease the speed and then, if necessary, the incline, until you find a combination that you can tolerate without holding on--then work up from there.

I think many people might find incline walking a nice alternative. I don't do it anymore, but it was very helpful when I was losing weight. I stumbled on it by accident. I was trying to really ramp up my cardio minutes, but could only run a limited amount. I was rotating my main cardio between my stairclimber, running, and a cross trainer at the fitness center. Just to burn some extra calories, a couple of times a week I started walking on my treadmill at night while watching TV--either as an adjunct to my regular cardio workout earlier or as an "active rest" day. I figured that rather than sitting on the couch, I might as well burn a couple of hundred extra calories. Being the competitive sort that I am, I found that I had trouble holding back, so I kept bumping up the incline, just to see the calorie counter go up. At some point I started noticing that at the higher levels, my caloric expenditure was getting close to what it was when I was running. But, because of the lower impact, I could keep up the walking for an hour, while then I could only run for 20-30 minutes.

So while it didn't turn out to be the "easy" workout I had planned, I came away a big fan of incline walking.

You just can't hold on.

Very good info! Thanks!

bosanka

Ok - now here is my question

Yes- i understand that " holding on to the handles " makes the workout easier- less impact.. but isn't it still better to do it at a more intense- while holding on to the handle- than going way down just to be able to do it without holding on ?

If i have to go without holding on to it- .. i will be going twice as slow as i'm now.. which will result in twice as low kcl burn..

I'm allready frustrated when i see- that after a 115 min workout on the treadmill with speed going anywhere from 3 mph to 5 mph - but mostly arround 3.5 -3.7 mph- and incline 3-4-5 8 %.. after all this 115 minutes- i have barely burned 900 kcl
according to the database i should have been more like 2000 kcl ..
and when i see other people post their workout like - 45 minute- burned 700 kcl - i think - what's wrong here ? why do i hav eto do " twice " as much to get that type of kcl burn ?
I don't have a HRM- had it - didn't trust it - it was showing somehow way to many kcls burned- it was always showing double of what the treadmill would say - ..

I don't know what i'm doing, asking a question or venting ? - sorry just a little frustrated ..