Who's exercising more?

[Big Pat]

Hi,

Need opinions from those of you with either a fitness or an engineering background...and anyone else of course....to settle this argument.

My office is on the third floor of our building, 77 steps if I don't take the lift which I try not to. Being 6' 3", I can take the stairs two at a time whereas my female colleague, at 5' 5" has to take them one at a time.

She says that because I'm taking fewer strides, I'm doing less exercise. My argument is that because I'm still lifting my weight to the same height as she is, I must be doing the same. Something from physics class when I was a kid seems to tell me that lifting a certain weight to a certain height requires a certain amount of work or force and I'm doing that. In fact, I'm doing more, because I weigh just about 100kgs to her 60 or so.

But there may be something in what she says because I know athletes, weight-lifters etc. count repetitions, not just dead weight, and I guess she's right that I am doing fewer of these.

So the question remains: ignoring all other factors like how many times a day I need to run down to the lobby (to buy chocolate!!) who's exercising more?

 

[Brianwarnock]

You obviously require more energy to lift your weight to a given height. Taking 2 steps at a time requires more muscle power than 1 at a time.
There has always been a debate concerning a lot of a light load versus a few of a heavy load, but in the end it would appear that the former builds tone and the latter muscle mass.

As an absolute fact I find it easier walking the hills without a rucksack than with one, weight matters, length of stride doesn't.

Brian

 

[rsmonkey]

In the context of 'whose doing more exercise' their are a couple of variables you would first need to take into consideration:

BMI - Body Mass Index, this is literally a numerical calculation of the amount of 'fat' you carry according to your height thus if you had exactly the same bmi then the exact same exersion would be needed in order to carry yourself up a given distance.

However we are talking terms of exercise, you would have to find a way of quantifying your own fitness. This would be necessary as the point of exercise is to improve one's physical and or mental state. Thus consider to people with the same BMI one who is an olymipic crosscountry athlete against a person who is anorexic. Considering these people are identical in everyway apart from the 2 things mentioned above (i know lifestyle wise this is really not applicable), and they do a 1000meter run at a given speed of 15kph in a given time of whatever. As you can imagine the exersion from the anorexic girl is going to be far greater than that of the olympic runner.

Baisically the point im trying to make is that this kind of calculation has far to many variables to percieve who is doing the 'more' exercise, their is no way of knowing how beneficary that execise can be someone.

but for arguments sake b/c you asked the question and obviously dont want to lose the battle.. erm you're right your 'doing the same amount of exercise'

 

[Brianwarnock]

Rsmonkey. You are confusing amount of work with fitness strength and ability.
A simple example
Cindy's fella, Mr Gorilla, lifts 100kilos, through 2 feet., probably with 1 hand
If I succeeded in lifting 100 kilos it would not only represent the same amount of work but be a bloody miracle

On the other hand if he and I walked up Snowdon together he would probably have to do twice the amount of work as i as i only weigh 162 pounds.

Brian

 

[Alc]

Can really go to town on this one, eh?

Since the question didn't ask who did the most work, but who did the most exercise, I think you can interpret it how you see fit.

Big Pat is taking 38.5 steps.
His colleague is taking 77.
Assuming they're walking at the same pace (e.g. 1 step every half second), she will be walking for twice as long as him. Since cardiovacular exercise is often measured in terms of its' duration (e.g. 'You should do 30 minutes, three times a week'), from that perspective she would be 'exercising' twice as much as him. Who would benefit more from this walk would depend on a myriad of other factors, as pointed out elsewhere.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Big Pat is taking 38.5 steps.
His colleague is taking 77.
Assuming they're walking at the same pace (e.g. 1 step every half second), she will be walking for twice as long as him. Since cardiovacular exercise is often measured in terms of its' duration (e.g. 'You should do 30 minutes, three times a week'), from that perspective she would be 'exercising' twice as much as him. Who would benefit more from this walk would depend on a myriad of other factors, as pointed out elsewhere.

But by your calculations she will take twice as long to get there, and thus be working at only half his rate all other factors being equal which they are not.
The 30 minutes 3 times a week assumes some effort and cannot be taken as a standalone statement like that.

brian

 

[Alc]

But by your calculations she will take twice as long to get there, and thus be working at only half his rate all other factors being equal which they are not.
The 30 minutes 3 times a week assumes some effort and cannot be taken as a standalone statement like that.

I started the post with a comment on how the problem can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Some posters have chosen to go for a measure of the amount of work being done. I merely suggested that the amount of exercise someone does isn't necessarily related to that. I've taught fitness classes on and off for years and taking the scientific approach regarding how much force is needed to move a given object a set distance isn't always helpful.

At no point did I say all other factors were equal and I definitely didn't say that she would be putting in half as much effort by travelling slower. I specifically didn't mention the work rate as it's irrelevant to my point - it may take her twice as much effort to do half as much work. Under those conditions, she's getting more exercise as he's operating well within his comfort zone.

The use of the phrase 'e.g.' meant that I was giving the phrase following it as an example, rather than stating it was the only possibility. Yes, it assumes some effort is being used, but since that is a given - if no effort is involved, it's not exercise - there was little point adding it.

I wasn't arguing against the 'work' points made, just saying that there are other ways of interpreting the question. 'Doing exercise' is a fuzzy term at best.

 

[KenHigg]

Knowing the female type, I think the exersize thing is a diversion. I say she's up to something... Maybe she's trying to justify eating more from the snack machines - ?

 

[wazz]

hey big pat. try taking them one at a time next time and see how you feel. i bet it will seem like more work/you will feel more tired. seriously. try it.

i'm ~6'4" myself and always take stair-steps two at a time. recently i did some one at a time (for some unknown reason) and realized i was much more tired at the end. (damn i hate those little steps that are about 4" high and are nearly impossible to take one at a time).

it's a damn good question.

i think that speed is important. taking two at a time makes the climb "comfortable"; natural. doing one at a time feels slow and awkward; it makes me want to go faster because it's uncomfortable to do it.

i don't know.

hth.

 

[ColinEssex]

Being 6' 3", I can take the stairs two at a time whereas my female colleague, at 5' 5" has to take them one at a time.

The female is the clever one, you get there sooner so have to a) put on the kettle b) make the tea etc etc whilst she 'struggles' up the stairs.

Not that it's a mans job to make the tea and stuff mind you, but if you continue like this you could be taking womens work away from them, then you'll be charged with sexual discrimination against the little dears.

And you know how touchy they can get, especially if it's the wrong time of the month.

Col

 

[Ron_dK]

I would suggest to join the local football club in Nuneaton , fit in their 4 days/week training program and forget about your colleque's remark about doing less exercise.

 

[Rich]

And you know how touchy they can get, especially if it's the wrong time of the month.

Col

Is there ever a right time?

 

[wazz]

from national geographic, 1958:

 

[Big Pat]

Hi
Sorry it's taken me a few days to get back here and thanks for all the answers, both serious and funny. What a laugh

But wazz's post was the one that really struck home. Sometimes, if I'm having a conversation with someone as we're going up, I "go easy" on them and take the stairs one a time and by the time I get to the third floor I'm absolutely knackered and my thighs are screaming at me. That MUST be the increased repetitions surely? It can hardly be (or can it?) that I'm using different parts of my muscles which may not be as toned as the others. That leads me to suspect that my colleague may be right and I'm taking the easy way out by skipping every other step. Though I'd like to see her take them two at a time and see how much pain she's in then! God, I sound like some kinda sadist typing that.

I cycle a fair bit too and my legs are about the only part of me I'm happy with, so it's weird that takings smaller steps should be so hard. I agree entirely with wazz about those little goddamn three and four inch steps. Even worse, there's another office I have to visit from time to time and they have a stretch of steps from the carpark up to the ground level where each step is slightly too LONG to be able to take two at a time, but really shallow at the same time and I end up doing this weird effeminate-feeling tippy-toe thing. It's just wrong!

 

[wazz]

"It can hardly be (or can it?) that I'm using different parts of my muscles which may not be as toned as the others."

good point. or just different muscles.

 

[Brianwarnock]

It is just that you are moving unnaturally.

When walking my mate and I amble along putting the world to rights, but going up or down long steep hills we go at our own pace, if I walk at his pace going up I'm soon tired, and he strides away on the way down or his thighs kill him.

Brian

 

[Rich]

When walking my mate and I amble along putting the world to rights,
Brian

It must be a long walk

 

[Brianwarnock]

It must be a long walk

LOL

Mostly we pick winning teams for Liverpool and slag off Chelsea but despite our best intentions have to grudgingly admire Arsenal and Manu

Brian

We are on the bax this affy so better go and do some jobs before kickoff.

 

[Rich]

Certainly support the slagging of Chelsea, but can't see a reason to admire the gunners

 

[Big Pat]

Isn't it funny? Almost no matter what the starting topic on this site, it seems to inexorably find it's way back to football. To me, they're just booting an old pig-bladder around a field once or twice a week, which is fine until you consider the money they're being paid.

Hurling! Now THERE'S a sport!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurling