I've been running at "7.5 mph" on an elliptical for 40 minutes every other day for years. However, ellipticals overestimate calorie loss by 40% on average. I know excess cardio damages the heart. I don't care about losing calories, but MET is a really good index of cardiovascular intensity and with that the case, I was assuming I was doing a cardiovascular exercise the intensity of 11.5 METs. However overestimation of calories by 40% would mean I was doing 11.5/1.4 which is a mere ~8.2 METs intensity which is still high intensity/vigorous but the equivalent of only running at 5 mph. Should I run 11 mph, which has 16 METs therefore 16/1.4 is ~11.5 METs, which is the equivalent of 7.5 mph, which is the ideal pace of cardiovascular health as per pic rel? Just to be clear, my goals are the goldilock zone between cardiovascular fitness and minimizing heart damage from over-exercising.
inb4 categorically against ellipticals because they overestimate calories: you're still using your heart to move. It doesn't matter whether you want to improve cardio jerking off, doing moronic dances, or "running on a track field/in nature, bro". Physics are equivalent under all situations.
Wha
Just run 5 miles a week, 2 times a week for 2.5 miles moron holy shit
bro gymratting is another level, minmaxxing and microadjusting every little factor to squeeze out the most you can, you have no idea how much I care for getting it pin-point perfect
don't do it u will die soon
Ah how so? You mean it in the philosophical sense? I have faith in the life extension community. Expecting to me personally live to 150 if they make breakthroughs.
imagine using the most homosexual cardio device every constructed by humans
literally jerking off two rubber wieners while your legs spastically get pull forward and backward
the only way it could be more gay if one of the handles went into your ass while running
also imagine being afraid of too much cradio when you aren't a professional athlete and just doing the bare minimum of work lol
what a dumb thread OP
I'm saving up for a Lovense vibrator, I could maybe run while letting some anon fool around my ass, nyaa~~ owo
Oh boy another moron with a smart watch. You could do double this literally every day and not damage your vascular system. The only people who get wrecked by this stuff are people who have acute increases and sustain them usually with peds until something breaks.
I don't have a smart watch, I'm poor. If I'd have a smart watch I'd run outside not in my fricking basement.
You're telling me you do the METs meme without a hr monitor or some matter of biometric tracking device?
Whats the point of doing METs for one activity? Isn't it meant to track all activity in a given time period?
Well people use METs usually to determine calories burned, but calories have to be burned with SOMETHING, they have to burned using oxygen, which has to be pumped in and out of lungs and into the body. This means although MET's primary purpose is probably counting calories, I think it can serve a double-purpose of indicating cardiovascular intensity of a particular activity as well, which is especially salient to optimize cardiovascular fitness gains.
Even pro runners and people who do ultra marathons still have a decreased chance of cardiovascular disease when compared to sedentary people. People who frick up their heart from exercise usually have underlying congenital defects. Heart damage from cardio is the new "much knees!" Powershitter cope.
> the new muh knees
Why do you think I run on an elliptical, anon...
>excess cardio damages the heart.
Yeah that's like marathon level shit though. 40 minutes of running every other day is barely adequate.
meh frick it I'll just up it to 11 mph and call it a day, hopefully I won't get afib when I'm 40.
TLDR
Run 5-20 miles per week. All the data shows that past 20 miles you get negative returns for cardiovascular/etc. health
IMO 10ish miles per week is the ideal (5k 3x per week). That’s only a little bit over an hour
That's not really how it works though. Running 20 miles at 10 mph and at 5 mph are clearly different cases.
This confuses me a bit because physics indicates that moving an object a certain distance will use the same energy irrespective of speed.
Wouldn't walking or running the same distance use the same energy. One just requires more time.
IDK but with cars for instance it matters
Your right! Efficiency matters. I wonder if humans naturally trend towards peak efficiency while running or walking.
Biology's usually far less efficient than human engineering, so I think it's probably unlikely, the wheel was a major invention for a reason.
>I know excess cardio damages the heart.
lol fatty