Quote:
There is no way that the five minutes of sustained exercise I could do when I started was anything like as effective as the 60 minutes I can do now. Yes, minute by minute it certainly burned more energy, but total duration is really important. Certainly the early benefits for my cardiovascular system were tremendous, but I continue to hold that exercise is a long-term investment.
Sorry, I think I was unclear. Also, I'm speaking from my own experience here with heart rate monitors and such.There is no way that the five minutes of sustained exercise I could do when I started was anything like as effective as the 60 minutes I can do now. Yes, minute by minute it certainly burned more energy, but total duration is really important. Certainly the early benefits for my cardiovascular system were tremendous, but I continue to hold that exercise is a long-term investment.
When I first started exercising, I would do 30 minutes of fairly light activity (fast-ish walking, bouncing on a rebounder). My heart rate would be in the high 150s to low 160s, and because my heart rate was so high and my weight was so much higher, I could burn maybe 300-400 calories in that 30 minutes (which was sustainable for me, to walk for 30 minutes, at that time...I certainly wouldn't have been able to kickbox for 30 minutes, but I COULD walk, and that walking got my heart rate pretty darned high).
Now, because my weight is lower and I am more fit, I have to perform even more intense activity to get my heartrate up to the same training levels that I reached just by walking (running, fast walks at very high incline, kickboxing), and therefore get close to the same calorie burns. Walking barely even raises my heart rate anymore, unfortunate because I walk my dog every darned day and no longer "count" it as cardio.




Anyone think I should go back to
smoking 