Exercise! - Time or Distance??

View Full Version : Time or Distance??

01-25-2007, 07:10 PM
When using the treadmill (or any other exercise really that measures time and distance) should one focus more on the time they do the activity or the distance they cover doing that activity?

01-25-2007, 07:15 PM
On my Nordic Track, I judge by time because the little gauge that measures distance broke. When I walk, I also measure time, but only because I know I can walk the entire circuit in 1 hour 10 minutes, so I always try for that time (but when DH comes along, it takes longer than 1 hour 30 minutes!).

01-25-2007, 08:18 PM
Time measures exactly that; distance, to me, seems to be more a way of measuring your intensity. I'd focus on time first, then worry about what distance you cover in that time later.

01-25-2007, 08:31 PM
I read somewhere that the calories you burn walking/jogging are roughly the same for each distance...so for example, whether it takes you 30 min to run a certain distance, but an hour to walk it, you'll be burning the same number of calories either way, just spending more time.

Also, are you talking about physical health, or calorie burning purposes? Going faster (more distance/less time) gets your heart moving faster and is better for cardiovascular health and getting in shape. But in a technical sense, the calories burned is roughly the same.

01-25-2007, 09:12 PM
both - if you dont keep bumping the intensity up, eventually you will get less benefit from the workout. The fitter you get the faster you have to go to get the same benefit.

When I first started running, I was running outside, so I picked a distance that took me about 30 minutes to walk/jog and I kept doing it faster each day and when I could do it in 25 min, I picked a longer route that took me 35 min, etc.