Sport Today

No sure if increased heart rate effects metabolism in terms of calories
burned, but...

while in HS one day after a CC practice a bunch of us were at a guys
house that we knew who was a parametic. He had brought his Ambulance
home with him (along with the driver, they were actually on call but he
was able to hang out at home. Unfortuantly this guy died in a hunting
acident, real sad). Everyone wanted to "check it out". While we were in
there they wanted to hook me up to see my heart rate and stuff on all
the monitors. Well, when I got hooked up my heart rate was at 75 bpm.
Now at that time my average bpm (taken before practice everyday) was 55
bpm, I thought something was wrong. I mentioned that I had just ran 4
hours ago. He said that it sometimes can take even longer than that for
the human body to recover from workouts (I take that as meaning
returning to baseline). So I don't know what you are defining as
quickly but it would seem that an increased heart rate a few hours
later would indicate that body not yet at baseline. Of course maybe I
am slow to recover or there were other factors that increased my heart
rate?

John

Kinda dispells a lot of the myths all those weightlifter types used to
spout in asd, doesn't it? ;)

I remember they used to laugh at me when I said things like this. lol!
Cardio IS more important than muscleheads will ever admit.

Let me clarify a bit more....running IS a weight-bearing workout. When
you run, you carry all of your weight along with you.

Look at the different folks' weekly workouts. These are for the most
part, seasoned runners. A very small amount of them do any weight work,
other than running.

Some gym rats think that's horrible, but to be a better run, run. Doing
a lot of weight lifting isn't going to make you a better runner. In
many cases, it will***up your running.

So, it does burst the Holy Bible that weight lifting is the most
important workout one can do. I guess for non-runners it is. ;)

only if you're one of the random people that formula works for.

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf

Dot

--
"If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough."
- Matt Carpenter

I'd just like to thank Dot for a very informative article. I found it
very interesting to see that such a big part of our exercise
physiology was actualy not conclusive research, and that it is
actually impossible to have a single formula for the greater
population.

  As usual, agree strongly.  This is particularly important for
beginners, as 75% HRR can easily be 10-20 beats per minute higher
than 75% heart rate max.  Beginners often complain about "but I
can't run that slowly" -- meaning the heart rate max
version.  And this isn't unreasonable.  Consider a beginner
with a resting heart rate of 72, and a max of 195 (my max).
75% heart rate reserve is 164.  But 75% heart rate max is
only 146 (and will never change).  As our beginner gets fitter,
that resting heart rate will drop, as will the indicated heart
rate to run at (for 60, it's 161, at 44, my typical value when
I'm in good training, it's 157 -- still 11 bpm higher than
the heart rate max version).

  Those who don't want to wrestle the computations themselves
can use my web page (you'll want the bottom section)
http://www.radix.net/%7Ebobg/run/hr.html

[snip]

  The most efficient walking pace on flat ground is typically faster than
3 mph.  It's proportional to the square root of leg length (the period
of an inverted pendulum), and works out to 3.7 to 3.8 mph for me (inseam
of 35 inches).  Walking energy efficiency declines rapidly as you
move away from this optimim, hence folks breaking in to a run in the
4-5 mph range (and why I avoid doing much mall walking -- typically
ca. 1 mph, and downright painful if I keep it up for long).

  The thing more a question, I think, for a beginner is not which
will burn more calories (per minute, per mile) but what combination
of walking and running will keep you uninjured so that you can
get out consistently and add up many minutes and miles of good
exercise.  

[more trimmage]
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

and for the many months & years to come -- this is not a short-term project.

I don't do a "program", though I go through periods of particular target
training, and what I do has changed over the years. I also get fairly
regular (more or less annual) "time off" when I come down with somedamnbug &
can barely stroll around the block for a few weeks. This of course requires
ramping up my training again. But it's never going to be "over", no matter
how "different" it gets.
bj

  The error has been described already.

  In all seriousness, exercise when you're most comfortable doing
so.  Or, maybe more to the point, exercise at a time or on a schedule
that you're most likely to hold to consistently.  Getting out
consistently is vastly, vastly more important than any weird
little effects that might exist for this time vs. that time.
(Most claims for these effects turn out to be erroneous.  Yet
another reason to go for consistency.)

  Calories are indeed calories.  New vs. old doesn't matter,
'fat calories' vs 'sugar calories' doesn't matter.  Do some
good, healthy exercise and burn off calories.  Your body doesn't
care which.

  Since you have health issues prompting you to ask the question,
talk to your doctor before implementing anything you see here.

  In general, effort level is what to work with rather than heart
rate.  Be conversational (a few words at a time conversation), for
about 30 minutes as you're getting started.

  'better' ... for what?  Depending on exact paces for the racewalk
vs. slow jog, you may well be burning more calories in the racewalk.
But I think the more important question for you is which will do
more for your BP, and I haven't a clue here -- except that getting
out regularly will do you more good than infrequent workouts.

  I'll suggest a conservative approach.  (I usually do :-)

  First thing is, start an exercise log.  Record what you do (walking/
swimming/running/biking/weights/...), and how you feel.  You might also
record the weather, when you ate, ...  Look, every week or two, for
patterns in when you have off days (maybe you ate too soon before
the workout).

  Get yourself a pair of running/walking shoes.  If your shoes are
3 years old (like those of a friend recently complaining of ankle
pains), you definitely need a new pair.  Get them from a running
shoe store where they make you run in front of them before recommending
a brand/style.

  Start with getting to 30 minutes of brisk walking on a daily basis.
Actually carry out at least a full week of this before tossing in the
running.  Walking is, itself, a good exercise.  It is also much less
likely to give you injuries.  If this is feeling like effort, don't
do any running until the 30 minute walk feels easy*.  In the mean time,
be scoping out what some nice routes would be for when you start
adding running.  Call this your research phase.
*Wait for the end of the week before concluding that it was easy.
It's very easy to persuade yourself that today's workout was easy.
And then tomorrow or the day after, you feel the soreness and realize
that it wasn't so easy after all.

  Once you're through your research phase, include some running on
every other day -- not every day, every other.  The extra
stresses on your body from running will take more than 24 hours
to recover/rebuild from.  36-48 is typical.  Go ahead with your
normal 30 minute walk on the non-running days.  On the days you
include running -- which I suggest you start with 30 seconds at
a time -- total 20-30 minutes of running+walking.  Week to week,
increase the running time, or decrease the walking (recovery) portion
on the running days.

  A general thing is to be looking at the walking/running as part
of your healthier new lifestyle -- something you're going to be
continuing for another 50 years.  Since you'll be carrying it
on for a good long time, you don't have to race up to doing a
marathon in the next few months.  (You need never do a marathon,
or go to a race of any kind.)  One purpose of my slow approach
(which is what I did when I started running) is to give you
time to make this a habit before you encounter things that are
difficult.  Done perfectly, you never do encounter truly difficult.
You make steady progress, but without hitting walls.  

--
Robert Grumbine http://SportToday.org/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Some of us may prefer a really slow jog to a fast walk.

I do, and even if (& I don't know the answer) fast-walking would be "better"
for me, I wouldn't enjoy it as much & would be less likely to keep it up
long term.

But I do walk on some of the days I don't run (jog, shuffle along, whatever
you want to call it, which I do only about 3x/week) -- sometimes it's a
reasonably brisk (brisk for me, anyway) walk for 1/2 hour, some days it's
just a stroll around the block -- and I enjoy pausing for a bit of fur-fix
from my various doggy-friends along the way, too. I want all this to be
enjoyable (most of the time), not a chore I'll dread.

The important thing is to do some moving, on a regular basis -- as a
lifelong habit. OK, I got a bit carried away & took up road racing -- you'll
find me at the back of the pack -- but if it stops being fun, I'll quit the
overdoing it part --  but I'll still have to keep moving somehow. And
besides, exercise is quite literally one of my medications -- if I didn't
exercise I'd have to take more pills & stuff *and* skip most of the treats I
can now enjoy. :-)
bj