>General Running>bpm and calories burned...
I've got a fever...
On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.
While this is technically true, it's encouraging you to be inefficient (i.e. slow down your stride rate (bpm)) to expend more energy, and I think in the long run (no pun intended), that's a bad idea.
Abs of Flabs
This sounds like voodoo and nonsense to me. Unless and until I see a respected physiologist support this conclusion, it strikes me as weight-loss bunk. In fact, I suspect its nothing more than a corollary of the commonly-repeated myth than you "burn more fat" at 60% Max HR than at 80% Max HR.
And jeffgoblue is right ... if you want to slow down your running (nothing wrong with that) you are better off shortening your stride length than trying to hit an arbitrarily low stride rate.
Caveat emptor on this one, folks.
*embarrassed* i'm still kinda green to this running thang, so trying to figure out stride length and bpm seems confusing... But it seems like a fun tool to mess around with..../gets into trouble with idle time
how do you figure out if your stride is matching the bpm? i'm still trying to master the "one foot in front of the other" technique...lol
This sounds like voodoo and nonsense to me. [..] Caveat emptor on this one, folks.