25 minutes on the treadmill this morning. 3.0 m.p.h. at a 4% incline – - it was a comfortable distance. I walked a total of 3/4 mile and burned 125 calories. At least, that is according to the digital readout on the display. Not quite sure why I didn’t go for the full 30 mins instead of 25 – - I swear I’ll do a full 30 mins. tomorrow. The burn in my calves just didn’t want to do the full 30 today.
I’m wondering if it’s better to keep track of the amount of time? Or the distance? Would it be easier if my goal were 1 mile per day – - no matter how long it takes? Or 30 minutes a day – - no matter how far I walk?
Hmm…details, details.
So, I walk. As long as I have something interesting to watch on TV – the boredom factor isn’t much of an issue. I usually watch FoxNews — because the switching from story to story keeps my attention deficit disorder in check.
I try and do 30 minutes of cardio, be that 20 minutes on the long stride elliptical and ten minutes on a bike or the other way around. I also try and set a goal of 200 calories burned in 30 minutes.
Not a bad plan – - thanks for the idea
When I was doing the elliptical, my trainer wanted me to do 30 minutes every day I went (3-4 xs a week). What I would do is try to go further each time in my 30 minutes. So, in return, my average speed was increasing and my heartrate as well
Thanks for that lyncca. I’m currently killing myself doing 1.5 miles in about 22-25 minutes.
Driving myself nuts over whether to count miles, time, heartrate or calories burned. At this point – - I think I’ll just walk till I’m beat! lol