Exercise! - Walking quickly vs walking steeply question

02-23-2008, 07:14 PM
I've discovered that (after warming up) I can get my heart rate up to my target range when I walk at 3.8 mph at a 10% incline. I can also accomplish the same result when I slow jog at 5 mph. My perceived level of exertion is the same (although I feel a little less breathless doing the inclined walk).

Would you say that the two workouts are equivalent? I enjoy the inclined walk a bit more.

btw, I've been working out for over a year and am in good shape physically (still waiting for my "outside" body to catch up with my "inside" body).

02-23-2008, 11:13 PM
No real knowledge here but my opinion would be that as long as your heart rate is the at the target zone then you are good. Unless you are training for something...

I have a question for you...what is your target heart rate zone? I have heard so much lately and am pretty confused about what my zone should be...Thanks!

02-23-2008, 11:42 PM
Bethel -- Congrats on your weight loss :high:

My UNexpert opinion would be that they are both good and that you would probably get much benefit from doing both for variety... Your body does get used to doing the same exercise over and over and this is when you reach a plateau. Sounds like the jogging is a higher intensity for you though because of your perceived level of exertion and therefore I would think it is higher intensity and burning more calories... I personally prefer higher intensity ...

Incline works the glutes though and that is also a good thing...

So keep up the variety of doing both, I'd say...

02-23-2008, 11:45 PM
Bethel, I think the differences between the two are going to be insignificant for your purposes. Do the one you enjoy the most and keep on pushing yourself. (Your heart rate will adapt).

Tonia, you want to exercise between 60% and 80% of your maximum heart rate. (To get a reasonable estimate of your max, subtract your age from 220). More importantly, you want your heart rate to be as high as you can sustain for the length of your workout. The whole 'fat zone' thing is a myth--more calories are burned by working harder and having a higher heart rate. So, push yourself and work hard, but not so hard that you hurt yourself or burn out. :)

02-24-2008, 10:29 AM
Thanks, baffeled, I heard Dr. Oz say to subtract your age from 220 and work out at 80% of that number. That would put my target heart rate at about 145 and I find that almost impossible to work out for any length of time at that number. 60% of max is a more reasonable 106...I tend to keep my heart rate at about 130 or so. Maybe I just need to work up to 145...!

Thanks again!

02-24-2008, 10:32 AM
Tonia, do your usual cardio at 130 but throw in some 30 - 60 second intervals at 145, then drop back to 130. You'll get a better calorie burn and you'll be conditioning your heart to work harder and more efficiently. Over time, you'll definitely be able to work at a higher HR for a longer period of time. :)

02-24-2008, 08:07 PM
That is what my dh said but he suggested not 30-60 seconds, more like 1-2 min and to me that was too overwhelming to think of! how funny, why didn't I/he think of just shorter lenghts of time? Thanks!

Hat Trick
02-25-2008, 10:39 AM
Bethel - Yup, I do the same thing. I like to interval on the TM 5.2 - 7.3 and everything in between for 8 to 10 intervals. After 4 or 5 intervals, I'll walk for 1 or 2 min at 4.3 or so, then finish the rest of the intervals. I don't keep precise count of speed and such; I like to be willy-nilly w/it all. I also find that there are some days when running at the high end of the numbers just isn't working. So I jack up the incline to 6 or 7 and 'run' at 4.8-5.0. Gets my heart rate up but at a slower pace, if that makes sense. Good for the butt too.

How do I know if I've gotten a good interval workout? I'm sweating, breathing hard and my face gets red (I'm one of those Irish girls ;)). I usually do a 3 min wu, 20 mins of intervals and a 2 min cd, 3x/wk. Strength stuff 2-3x/wk. Seems to be working.