Walking to 10,000



R

Robert Grumbine

Guest
I'm getting concerned about the program my employer is trying
to sell to staff. It's primarily an older population (I'm well
to the young end) and primarily either already active, or very
sedentary.

First warning flag, to me, was that they came out trying to
enroll everybody in a plan for _immediately_ starting 6 days a
week of 30 minutes a day aerobic exercise. No cautions as to
health status, weight, age. No ramping up.

Second was today's, to get to 10,000 steps (pedometers being
offered) per day with 20% per week increases _within_ the next
6 weeks. To reach 10,000/day with 'only' that increase, people
would already have to be over 3350 already, which I doubt is
common except among those who are already active and probably
exceeding, at least on average, the 10k steps/day anyhow.

I know we consider 10%/week a high increase for running. Anyone
know what is reasonable for walking?

Just a mess. Violates anything known about activity and
coaching -- it ignores the starting point of the participant,
it ignores the participant's goals/interests, it applies an
identical measure/goal for all people (25 year old men are
given the same target as 75 year old women), it applies
extremely rapid approach to those goals (immediate in the
30 minutes/day 6 days/week, 6 weeks for the 10,000 steps/day).
Arrgh! (imho)

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
 
6 days a week of getting 30 minutes of aerobic activity is only one day per
week more than is recommended by ACSM and the Surgeon General's report from
a few years back.

I think most people can walk 30 minutes a day. It might be better to break
it up a bit, but walking is not running so I would not say the same rules
apply.

It would be preferable that folks who meet ACSM's guidelines for a physical
do so.

I believe the Canadian organizations and also some Japanese researchers have
been doing this as has a group out of Colorado (the name escpaes me but it
is something like America on the Move).

I am more concerned about the one size fits all approach. Some people might
prefer another activity.

Has your employer consulted with experts on this program?


"Robert Grumbine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm getting concerned about the program my employer is trying
> to sell to staff. It's primarily an older population (I'm well
> to the young end) and primarily either already active, or very
> sedentary.
>
> First warning flag, to me, was that they came out trying to
> enroll everybody in a plan for _immediately_ starting 6 days a
> week of 30 minutes a day aerobic exercise. No cautions as to
> health status, weight, age. No ramping up.
>
> Second was today's, to get to 10,000 steps (pedometers being
> offered) per day with 20% per week increases _within_ the next
> 6 weeks. To reach 10,000/day with 'only' that increase, people
> would already have to be over 3350 already, which I doubt is
> common except among those who are already active and probably
> exceeding, at least on average, the 10k steps/day anyhow.
>
> I know we consider 10%/week a high increase for running. Anyone
> know what is reasonable for walking?
>
> Just a mess. Violates anything known about activity and
> coaching -- it ignores the starting point of the participant,
> it ignores the participant's goals/interests, it applies an
> identical measure/goal for all people (25 year old men are
> given the same target as 75 year old women), it applies
> extremely rapid approach to those goals (immediate in the
> 30 minutes/day 6 days/week, 6 weeks for the 10,000 steps/day).
> Arrgh! (imho)
>
> --
> Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur
activities notes and links.
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too
much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than
they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New
Sciences
 
<< I am more concerned about the one size fits all approach. Some people might
prefer another activity. >>

Take off your shoes,
Sit, relax ~
Stay a while~
1-size socks fit most!

America Offline!

~(@:>

Log-on...
Yule log?
Dialog?
Got good
Now?
Hm?

[Hey!]
_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>
 
Hey it's about time somebody decides to do something forces people off their
butts to get in shape. It should not be mandated, but should be part of an
incentive program as a part of an overall health plan, which lowers the cost
of health care in the long run. Less pay for employees who fail to commit
to long-term exercise plans makes sense economically for both the company
and the employee; they're the ones who make costs go up. This may seem
invasive, but it's less invasive than many other things companies are doing.

- Tony
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Sam <[email protected]> wrote:
>6 days a week of getting 30 minutes of aerobic activity is only one day per
>week more than is recommended by ACSM and the Surgeon General's report from
>a few years back.

No problem there. The problem, as I see it, is going to 6x30
_immediately_. As a goal to be reached, it's probably fine (I do have
some question about applying it without regard for age or physical
condition). But to tell a bunch of sedentary people who haven't done
5 minutes aerobically in 40 years to start with 6x30 ... that looks
like a disaster waiting to happen. One of the better possible outcomes
is that they never start, or at least quit soon.

>I think most people can walk 30 minutes a day. It might be better to break
>it up a bit, but walking is not running so I would not say the same rules
>apply.
>
>It would be preferable that folks who meet ACSM's guidelines for a physical
>do so.
>
>I believe the Canadian organizations and also some Japanese researchers have
>been doing this as has a group out of Colorado (the name escpaes me but it
>is something like America on the Move).
>
>I am more concerned about the one size fits all approach. Some people might
>prefer another activity.
>
>Has your employer consulted with experts on this program?

Unclear. Or, if they have, whether these are experts in the sense
of ACSM and Surgeon General, or experts in the sense of Joe's
Fitness Corporation. We've (down at the peon level I'm at) been
visited by folks of the latter type. Certainly there's no
program and no guidance on how to get from here (40 years
sedentary) to there (6x30 aerobic), nor mention that you can't
necessarily start in week 1 with the 6x30 (not even to note
that if you're, say, severely overweight, have a history of
heart disease in your family, have a cholesterol of 300 and
ratio of 10:1, and resting BP of 200/140, that maybe you should
talk to a doctor before starting).

In terms of activities, the first note lead to a list of
activities, not just walk/run. The second note was specifying
10,000 steps/day, which is rather more than 30 minutes/day.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
 
[email protected] (Robert Grumbine) wrote:

> I'm getting concerned about the program my employer is trying
>to sell to staff. It's primarily an older population (I'm well
>to the young end) and primarily either already active, or very
>sedentary.
>


><snip>


Hmmm, sounds similar to what's happening with a running friend of
ours. Her husband's company is doing it. My understanding is that it's
purpose is to reduce the company's insurance/health care costs.

Noble purpose, but implementation sounds a bit off.

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
 
Forced exercise? Where do you work, ****** Industries? You'd burn far
more calories savagely beating the putz who thought up this tripe, out
in the parking lot every day.
 
[email protected] (Robert Grumbine) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm getting concerned about the program my employer is trying
> to sell to staff. It's primarily an older population (I'm well
> to the young end) and primarily either already active, or very
> sedentary.
>
> First warning flag, to me, was that they came out trying to
> enroll everybody in a plan for _immediately_ starting 6 days a
> week of 30 minutes a day aerobic exercise. No cautions as to
> health status, weight, age. No ramping up.
>
> Second was today's, to get to 10,000 steps (pedometers being
> offered) per day with 20% per week increases _within_ the next
> 6 weeks. To reach 10,000/day with 'only' that increase, people
> would already have to be over 3350 already, which I doubt is
> common except among those who are already active and probably
> exceeding, at least on average, the 10k steps/day anyhow.
>
> I know we consider 10%/week a high increase for running. Anyone
> know what is reasonable for walking?
>
> Just a mess. Violates anything known about activity and
> coaching -- it ignores the starting point of the participant,
> it ignores the participant's goals/interests, it applies an
> identical measure/goal for all people (25 year old men are
> given the same target as 75 year old women), it applies
> extremely rapid approach to those goals (immediate in the
> 30 minutes/day 6 days/week, 6 weeks for the 10,000 steps/day).
> Arrgh! (imho)

Enjoy watching the carnage. I believe this is part of president Bush's
plan to increase employment rates and decrease Social Security
spending by killing off the old people.

Andy
 
"amh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Enjoy watching the carnage. I believe this is part of president Bush's
> plan to increase employment rates and decrease Social Security
> spending by killing off the old people.

He has to try something, he current direction is a cluster **ck!!!

-df
 
"Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "amh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Enjoy watching the carnage. I believe this is part of president Bush's
>> plan to increase employment rates and decrease Social Security
>> spending by killing off the old people.
>
> He has to try something, he current direction is a cluster **ck!!!
>
> -df

AHA - I used that term (cluster**ck) yesterday and had no idea where I got
it from. Yes, I'd heard it before, but now it all makes sense...
You're having an undue influence on me. Frightening.

Jenn
who also drank beers after running yesterday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back