So the moon is turned to blood, the sky has fallen, and I have at last got myself off to a gym…
I’ve been using the treadmill which surprisingly is slightly less unbearable than I thought it would be. The last two sessions I tried out some of the pre-programmed workouts:
1. 15 minute jog - 150 calories
2. 17 minute uphill walk - 150 calories
The jog absolutely killed me. I could tell my heart was beating faster, I was way more sweating, I nearly had a stitch, it was just agony, agony, agony. I was exhausted right after, it was hell.
The walk however wasn’t that bad. I was on the full vertical inclination setting, going quite briskly, and I got out of breath and quite hot, and felt my muscles working, but it was way, way more easy than the jog. Also: I did the walk after the jog, so I thought I should have been even more tired.
So what I don’t understand is: if the jog felt so much harder, why in calorie terms wasn’t it burning up a lot more? What was the jog doing that the walk wasn’t?
Was there any point to the jog in the first place? Or, if I didn’t find the walk that unbearable, was it actually doing me any good?
You’re burning calories, so that’s good for fat loss. As far as cardiovascular workout - the run is better than the walk because it elevates your heartrate. You want to get the heart going at least 120 bpm for extended periods of time, so by all means run. Your body is not used to it, that’s why it feels bad (and a lot of people won’t run). Also, for a given amount of time, running will burn more calories. So if you want to exercise for a period of time, and don’t want to sweat, walk. If you want to have a healthy body and live longer, run. I run all of the time, and I just love it. You will too, once you train your body. It may take a few eeks, but keep going, you’ll get used to it, and you’ll be much healthier!
Search on 'calorie exercise calculator" at www.google.com and you’ll get alot of references for looking up calories burned.
Yes, walking takes LONGER, so the extra time is spent burning calories…running is faster and takes longerr strides…and takes advantage of momentum.
Ah…exercise…to burn 1 pound of body fat, you’ll need to burn 3500 calories. That’s like a 40 mile walk.
Oh, but back to the question: walking takes longer and there is more action/stepping and less momentum.
Weight training, which can be done without muscle building, is much more efficient, and muscle burns calories at a great clip at rest. A muscular/lean person can eat anywhere from 300-600 more calories per day as the muscle burns cals at rest.
But thank you for all the advice and the encouragement - I will persevere with both.
Now… any one know the physical version of a (literal) killer app to get rid of flabby abs? It’s the lower ones that are the problem. I know the muscle I should be aiming for, because I once did a bit of Pilates. But I find it hard to isolate without all those special machines.
You cannot spot reduce an area…you will have to trim down your total body fat.
Ab exercies are good, but will slightly enlarge the area. Do some, but concentrate on aerobics that burn fat and toss in some weight training to kick your metabolism in fulltime fat burning mode.
You cannot burn fat off an area by isolating it.
for ab exercises, search the net…crunches and variations of situps are out there…find one you like since you’ll be likely to do it…
No machine’s gonna take fat off your abs. In order to do that, you’re gonna have to lose fat all over your body through a combination of weight training and cardiovascular exercise.
I don’t think the answers given were very satisfactory. If the above stats are correct, the walking is burning calories at a rate of approx 8.8 calories/minute and the jog is burning at 10 calories/minute. Not a lot of difference and this would tell me to walk, not jog considering the extra punishment your body takes, esp. to joints.
Should burning an extra 1.2 calories/minute cause that much extra strain?
The only real reason for jogging in this scenario is if walking does not get your heart rate up to your target heart rate which is generally between 50%-75% of your maximum heart rate. This is important to achive because then your metabolism stays higher for a period of time after exercise and you continue to burn calories at a faster rate than you would otherwise.
If your heart rate is in the target range, it’s working just as hard no matter what the exercise.
If you can get to your target range without putting more stress on your joints, you’ll be healthier for longer.
Yes, your joints do benefit somewhat from exercise but they don’t adapt as quickly or as well as muscles do.
Btw, jumping rope is supposed to be even more efficient than jogging so if efficiency is all you’re after, have at it.
The other thing is that the machine never seems to be able to read my heartrate. I’m guessing you’re supposed to put your hands over the exposed metal bits on the treadmill handle-bar. But it sort of flashes, looks like it’s trying to work it out, but fails. Or puts something like 65 - and my heartrate isn’t even that low at rest, let alone jogging.
I haven’t seen the type of heart rate monitor you’re talking about so i’m not sure. Get a watch with a second hand and count heartbeats for 15 seconds and multiply by 4. This is generally accurate enough for your needs.
Oh this just brought to mind something else. I notice most people who use those kinds of devices lean on the handles too much. You’re not suppose to put any weight on the handles. They are for maintaining balance only. If you lean on them, you will be making your exercise much less efficient.