I feel like a child playing truant. This blister is still evident so again I’ve done a pretty frantic 3 x 10 minutes on the static bike instead of running. I have a 13 mile run to do this weekend (another new distance), so it seems wise to prepare well. Any aggravation of this wound would be certain to reappear on the long run. I always do the long run on Sunday but I might just switch to tomorrow (Saturday) if the foot looks better, and if I can avoid the temptation to drive the 250 miles to see my football team humiliated at home against lowly Cambridge United. The exercise bike seems to be effective. It keeps me in the "fat-burning zone" longer than running, which always pushes me above that into the aerobic area. Having said that, this issue of heartrate zones is controversial. You can, if you are so inclined, read entire volumes about the significance of each of these heartrate bands; but you can also, if your appetite for research is still unsatisfied, read more stuff on why this concept is a heap of nonsense. It’s confusing for the ordinary chap in the street like me. In essence, the pro-theory has it that you burn more fat at a lower heartrate (60-70% of your maximum) than you do in, say, the 70-80% band. Let’s suppose there is something in the zoning theory. Take a look at the difference:
 |
 |
Wednesday night’s run (top) shows that most of it is spent in the higher band. My notional max heartrate is around 170, so the putative fat-burning zone is between 102 and 119, which is the green area of the graphs. On this showing NONE of the 70 minute run is in this category. You can just see the unpopulated green band at the bottom of the graphic. But the static-bike graph (lower) shows that most of the 3 x 10 minute bursts of activity are found here. Interesting huh? Ooops, that was a bit geeky. Time to shut up.
