Jan 2020
7:27pm, 8 Jan 2020
44,145 posts
|
Diogenes
No, we don’t.
|
Jan 2020
7:54pm, 8 Jan 2020
44,697 posts
|
Velociraptor
Coffee and dry Cheerios.
|
Jan 2020
7:56pm, 8 Jan 2020
8,904 posts
|
PaulaMc
Stir fry veg and rice noodles, leftover tofu, leftover chicken from last night's fajitas.
|
Jan 2020
8:00pm, 8 Jan 2020
15,626 posts
|
Serendippily
Bored of being on train now
|
Jan 2020
8:09pm, 8 Jan 2020
25,261 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
Very good trust me I'm a doctor article..10,000 steps v brisk walking for 30 mins....most interesting.
|
Jan 2020
8:34pm, 8 Jan 2020
28,848 posts
|
LazyDaisy
The 10,000 steps thing was just a marketing idea though wasn't it? It's the 'briskness' of the walking that presumably made the difference.
|
Jan 2020
8:42pm, 8 Jan 2020
48,233 posts
|
Dr PhFleecyD
I’ve been to talks on this by the experts There’s a minimum step number to not actually harm yourself, 3000 I think. Anything above 5000 is great, the more the better, and cadence is important too, can’t remember numbers exactly but yes the faster the better.
|
Jan 2020
8:46pm, 8 Jan 2020
37,680 posts
|
Purps
I think they say that brisk walking is 100bpm, when I was walking 'properly' I'd be doing somewhere between 130 and 145, apparently 140 is a cadence of running. Maybe I need to slow down
|
Jan 2020
8:50pm, 8 Jan 2020
25,263 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
Dr Moseley had the bpm measured individually so each person was different. The brisk walking was matched to music and came out better for blood pressure and weight loss...10, 000 steps better for well being, all good though...walking is ace, by far the easiest thing to do.
|
Jan 2020
8:50pm, 8 Jan 2020
32,556 posts
|
LindsD
Coffee
|