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
- Faster pace + longer distance = more calories burned = equivalent time spent
No comments:
Post a Comment