Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Missed it again

I decided to try to hit or break 75 minutes for five miles yesterday. (If you're a new reader and you think I'm a wimp, believe me, it's hard to do on the hilly route I take.) Missed it by 41 seconds. Grrr.

My problem is that I start out too slowly. The first mile takes a good 18 or 19 minutes, because it's all uphill. I need to learn to run up; so far, that's been more than I can manage. By the time I get to the last mile, I need to run it in 12 minutes or less to make my goal and, so far, that hasn't happened either. Close, but no cigar.

I need to clean my floors this morning and then go to town for a meet-and-greet with the Governor of West Virginia. My husband serves on a committee with the director of the Chamber of Commerce, who would like a good turnout this morning so I agreed to be a space-filler-upper.

What that means is that my activity du jour will be cleaning the floor.

Back to running/jogging/walking for a minute. Here's a dilemma I'm having. If 60 minutes of intentional activity per day will maintain weight for middle-aged women (that being the current theory), then it stands to reason that more activity should facilitate weight loss. If I run/jog my five miles, I naturally spend less time out there. (Yes, I realize I could run/jog farther, and I'm thinking of adding a mile to my route.) However, according to Garmin, a faster pace burns more calories.

Decisions, decisions.
  • Slower pace = fewer calories burned = more time spent
  • Faster pace = more calories burned = less time spent
I think the answer is in the previous paragraph.
  • Faster pace + longer distance = more calories burned = equivalent time spent
Grrr again.

No comments: