What works best

[Scott]

Hi:

I am very new to the exercise routine. I am a 27 y/o male 6ft
190 lbs, with some extra weight.

I am just starting out with running/jogging. I bought a heart
rate watch from polar so I would know exactly where I am in my
heart rate range (which is 125 - 164 Bpm)

My question is: As I am out on the street, I tend to run a
little faster, my heart rate goes above 165, I slow down to a
walk, it drops to 140-145 I run it goes up over 164 and I
walk...etc... is this ok? As long as I am in my range is that
burning the fat?

Or do I need to keep a steady slow jog going on where my heart
rate rarely fluctuates?

I tend to spend about an hour running, last I tracked the
distance it was an average of about 4 miles (hilly), 3-4
days a week.

Thanks in advance! Scott

[Sam]

"Scott" <macaco74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d08c6f92.0207261243.51f4e6b2@posting.google.com...
> Hi:
>
> I am very new to the exercise routine. I am a 27 y/o male
> 6ft 190 lbs, with some extra weight.
>
> I am just starting out with running/jogging. I bought a
> heart rate watch from polar so I would know exactly where I
> am in my heart rate range (which is 125 - 164 Bpm)
Exactly how did you derive this range?

I tell beginners to start easy for several weeks
with all running done at a pace at which they can
carry on a healthy discussion. No gasping.

>
> My question is: As I am out on the street, I tend to run a
> little faster, my heart rate goes above 165, I slow down to
> a walk, it drops to 140-145 I run it goes up over 164 and I
> walk...etc... is this ok? As long as I am in my range is
> that burning the fat?

I could rant on this misinformation about fat
burning for hours, but suffice it to say that it
is energy expended v. energy intake that matters.
You need to expend more energy than you take in.
Sprinters (at the highest levels) are not fat and
they do very little in this mythological fat
burning zone. It does not matter what fuel is used
as long as you are using fuel!

>
> Or do I need to keep a steady slow jog going on where my
> heart rate rarely fluctuates?

I would recommend this to begin with.

>
> I tend to spend about an hour running, last I tracked the
> distance it was an average of about 4 miles (hilly), 3-4
> days a week.

This is a great start.

>
> Thanks in advance! Scott

[Petzl]

On 26 Jul 2002 13:43:10 -0700, macaco74@hotmail.com
(Scott) wrote:

>Hi:
>
>I am very new to the exercise routine. I am a 27 y/o male 6ft
>190 lbs, with some extra weight.
>
>I am just starting out with running/jogging. I bought a heart
>rate watch from polar so I would know exactly where I am in
>my heart rate range (which is 125 - 164 Bpm)
>
>My question is: As I am out on the street, I tend to run a
>little faster, my heart rate goes above 165, I slow down to a
>walk, it drops to 140-145 I run it goes up over 164 and I
>walk...etc... is this ok? As long as I am in my range is that
>burning the fat?
>
>Or do I need to keep a steady slow jog going on where my
>heart rate rarely fluctuates?
>
>I tend to spend about an hour running, last I tracked the
>distance it was an average of about 4 miles (hilly), 3-4
>days a week.
>
>Thanks in advance! Scott

The Heart Rate monitor is a great toy The idea is to get a
idea of your max Heart rate (but not that important) and it is
the *average* heart rate over an hours exercise time

You will notice as your heart rate goes up your breathing
becomes more intense and after a time you do not need a heart
rate meter as you become familiar with you body

My advice is to start off slow and increase intensity over
time (as you get fitter this is a norm at any rate)

On the street it is a good idea to borrow a surveyors
measuring wheel (most councils have them) and walk it around
the street marking an "X" every half a mile for five miles (or
every kilometre for eight K's) just use a marking pen (white
silver or gold) Make a BIG mark on final distance (the
surveyors wheel is an accurate measure)

The way then to measure your increase in intensity is to TIME
the distance for five mile (or Eight Kilometre) As you finnish
the distance earlier means your fitness is increasing

For five miles try walking the distance on rest days run/walk
it twice a week and I use Heavyhands myself as it is low
impact where runnining particually for a new start is high
impact (so do not bust boiler)

Remember you will burn *more* calories walking five Miles than
running five miles (when walking put a little effort into it)

"The Heavyhands Walking Book" by Leonard Schwartz

After a time (or sooner) consider using a personal trainer to
really get your self into a great condition. They will include
weigth training as well as Aerobics and check your diet. Most
trainers offer a 6 month once or twice a week deal (and by
then you should know the routine)

My signature has good basic diet advice (print it out) Petzl
Plain talking, weight loss program that works
http://www.geocities.com/petzlx/Diet.htm

[Isiafs5]

> slow down to a walk, it drops to 140-145 I run it goes up
> over 164 and I walk...etc... is this ok? As long as I am in
> my range is that burning the fat?

Its fine. You are burning calories thereby depriving the fat.

Book for you: SERIOUS Training for Endurance Athletes.

For body fat percentage control, I believe in the total
calories in/out balance as the key. Training is the other key.

As an adult one big challenge will be to avoid overuse
injuries, especially with running.

Sling Skate

Buy ALTOIDS!!! Thanks for the support UK.

[Stephen Di]

In article <d08c6f92.0207261243.51f4e6b2@posting.google.com>,
macaco74@hotmail.com (Scott) wrote:

> My question is: As I am out on the street, I tend to run a
> little faster, my heart rate goes above 165, I slow down to
> a walk, it drops to 140-145 I run it goes up over 164 and I
> walk...etc... is this ok? As long as I am in my range is
> that burning the fat?

You are burning calories even if you are below your range.
Calories burned are approximately proportional to distance
traveled, regardless of your speed. (Obviously, you burn them
in a shorter _time_ going faster).

The distinction between burning fat versus carbohydrate stores
is probably irrelevant from a weight loss standpoint.

Actually, the pattern of taking your heart rate up to a limit,
and then letting it decrease to a low limit, and bringing it
back up, is a good training technique. It in effect takes
advantage of the hard-easy pattern, basic to modern
conditioning, on a "micro" basis. Heart rate monitors make
this pattern easy to execute.

Stephen Diamond

[Scott]

Thank you all very much! This is all helpful!

Stephen Diamond <stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<stephend15-54F0F9.09154427072002@news.mindspring.com>...
> In article
> <d08c6f92.0207261243.51f4e6b2@posting.google.com>,
> macaco74@hotmail.com (Scott) wrote:
>
> > My question is: As I am out on the street, I tend to run a
> > little faster, my heart rate goes above 165, I slow down
> > to a walk, it drops to 140-145 I run it goes up over 164
> > and I walk...etc... is this ok? As long as I am in my
> > range is that burning the fat?
>
> You are burning calories even if you are below your range.
> Calories burned are approximately proportional to distance
> traveled, regardless of your speed. (Obviously, you burn
> them in a shorter _time_ going faster).
>
> The distinction between burning fat versus carbohydrate
> stores is probably irrelevant from a weight loss standpoint.
>
> Actually, the pattern of taking your heart rate up to a
> limit, and then letting it decrease to a low limit, and
> bringing it back up, is a good training technique. It in
> effect takes advantage of the hard-easy pattern, basic to
> modern conditioning, on a "micro" basis. Heart rate monitors
> make this pattern easy to execute.
>
> Stephen Diamond

[Doug]

>Remember you will burn *more* calories walking five
>Miles than running five miles (when walking put a little
>effort into it)
>

Huh?!!?? As a matter of physics, it takes the same amount of
energy (calories) to _walk_ 5 miles as it does to _run_ 5
miles. You will burn the same number of calories regardless.
Maybe you meant to say "you will burn more FAT calories
walking than you will running". There is lots of debate even
over this.

To the original poster on this thread, I say do what you're
comfortable with. Don't be limited to what a particular heart
rate percent is telling you. If you're body is doing okay at
above your theoretical fat-burning zone (lots of people
disagree over whether or not this "zone" actually exists) then
you're in better cardiovascular shape than you think and you
are capable of running longer without the need to drop back
down to the lower limit of the zone. A heart-rate monitor is a
neat toy. I've got one also, but I mostly use it for a) to
make sure I don't slip down into goofing off and b) to test my
resting heart rate. Usually, your resting

heart rate is a good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

[Stephen Di]

In article <3d454712$1_2@newsa.ev1.net>, "doug"
<doug@anon.com> wrote:

> Huh?!!?? As a matter of physics, it takes the same amount of
> energy (calories) to _walk_ 5 miles as it does to _run_ 5
> miles. You will burn the same number of calories regardless.
> Maybe you meant to say "you will burn more FAT calories
> walking than you will running". There is lots of debate even
> over this.

The laws of physics tell you the energy required is directly
proportional to the work performed. But it is NOT strictly
true that traveling five miles requires the same work. The
work accomplished is the movement of the body, not (strictly)
the distance traveled. Calories burned walking and running are
roughtly proportional to the distance traveled, but the
proportionality breaks down at very fast walking speeds. Since
walking very fast is a less efficience way to travel than to
run moderately slowly, to cover the same distance at the same
time, very fast race walkers burn more calories than runners
traveling the same distance at the same speed.

Stephen Diamond

[Scott]

Thanks...I think today I will try to maintain a steady jogging
pace for most of my workout. It gets more difficult when
trying to get fully involved with this for there are so many
differet ways to do it and each way seems to be completely
different. But I really appreciate all that has been
contributed and I will contunie trying. I am sure that running
at any pace is better than sitting on my couch eating a pizza
dn playing PS2.

:-D

"doug" <doug@anon.com> wrote in message
news:<3d454712$1_2@newsa.ev1.net>...
> >Remember you will burn *more* calories walking five Miles
> >than running five miles (when walking put a little effort
> >into it)
> >
>
> Huh?!!?? As a matter of physics, it takes the same amount of
> energy (calories) to _walk_ 5 miles as it does to _run_ 5
> miles. You will burn the same number of calories regardless.
> Maybe you meant to say "you will burn more FAT calories
> walking than you will running". There is lots of debate even
> over this.
>
> To the original poster on this thread, I say do what you're
> comfortable with. Don't be limited to what a particular
> heart rate percent is telling you. If you're body is doing
> okay at above your theoretical fat-burning zone (lots of
> people disagree over whether or not this "zone" actually
> exists) then you're in better cardiovascular shape than you
> think and you are capable of running longer without the need
> to drop back down to the lower limit of the zone. A
> heart-rate monitor is a neat toy. I've got one also, but I
> mostly use it for a) to make sure I don't slip down into
> goofing off and b) to test my resting heart rate. Usually,
> your resting
>
> heart rate is a good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

[Doug]

Stephen Diamond <stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <3d454712$1_2@newsa.ev1.net>, "doug"
><doug@anon.com> wrote:
>
>> Huh?!!?? As a matter of physics, it takes the same amount
>> of energy (calories) to _walk_ 5 miles as it does to _run_
>> 5 miles. You will burn the same number of calories
>> regardless. Maybe you meant to say "you will burn more FAT
>> calories walking than you will running". There is lots of
>> debate even over this.
>
>The laws of physics tell you the energy required is directly
>proportional to the work performed. But it is NOT strictly
>true that traveling five miles requires the same work. The
>work accomplished is the movement of the body, not (strictly)
>the distance traveled. Calories

>burned walking and running are roughtly proportional to the
>distance traveled, but the proportionality breaks down at
>very fast walking speeds. Since walking very fast is a less
>efficience way to travel than

>to run moderately slowly, to cover the same distance at the
>same time, very fast race walkers burn more calories than
>runners traveling the same distance at the same speed.
>
>Stephen Diamond

(Let me try this again. My mail server has been up and down
and I don't see my last post.)

Not to get into a physics debate, but the OP said that you
burn more calories walking 5 miles than you do running 5
miles. This simply isn't true for most serious discussions.
True, efficiency does play a role, but I was making the
assumption that no out-of-the-ordinary exertion was occuring.
Yes, walking will burn more calories if you're bringing your
knees up to your chest a la John Cleese on his way to the
Ministry of Silly Walks or you're doing lunges with each step,
but _normal_ walking and _normal_ running will burn calories
over roughly the same distance.

There are some who believe that walking will burn more FAT
calories, but that is debatable.

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:55:17 -0000, "doug"
<doug@anon.com> wrote:

>
>Stephen Diamond <stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>In article <3d454712$1_2@newsa.ev1.net>, "doug"
>><doug@anon.com> wrote:

>(Let me try this again. My mail server has been up and down
>and I don't see my last post.)
>
>Not to get into a physics debate, but the OP said that you
>burn more calories walking 5 miles than you do running 5
>miles. This simply isn't true for most serious discussions.
>True, efficiency does play a role, but I was making the
>assumption that no out-of-the-ordinary exertion was occuring.
>Yes, walking will burn more calories if you're bringing your
>knees up to your chest a la John Cleese on his way to the
>Ministry of Silly Walks or you're doing lunges with each
>step, but _normal_ walking and _normal_ running will burn
>calories over roughly the same distance.
>
>There are some who believe that walking will burn more FAT
>calories, but that is debatable.

If you prefer to run please do so. This is also an
excellent exercise with many more benefits aside from
simple calorie loss

There are two extremes with walking a set distance and
calorie loss

If walking below 3 MPH the calorie burning is more efficient
and less than running that distance (It still helps condition
one to walk at a faster pace)

at 4MPH or above is inefficient and would burn more calories
than running with a lot less impact. The faster one walks the
higher the calorie burn becomes. Walking is a good start to a
changing healthier lifestyle

Yes walking like Groucho Marx or similar increases the calorie
burn significantly (also pumping light weights marching
fashion, from below waist to above head can double this
calorie burn again)

As for fat burning zones or whatever this is also a myth. All
one can do is burn calories at varying rates. The factors are
always calories burnt during a day verses calories consumed

If you burn more than you consume your body fat goes down and
vice versa

Check the diet web page in my Signature

Petzl Plain talking, weight loss program that works
http://www.geocities.com/petzlx/Diet.htm

[Stephen Di]

In article <ukdrp557tt7ddb@corp.supernews.com>, "doug"
<doug@anon.com> wrote:

> True, efficiency does play a role, but I was making the
> assumption that no out-of-the-ordinary exertion was
> occuring.

Right, walking burns more calories than running only where
that assumption is violated.

Stephen Diamond