Sunday, August 18, 2013

No, no it's not!

One of my Facebook friends, who happens to own a gym that has Rebounder classes, posted this graphic suggesting that rebounding for 10 minutes is "as effective" as running for 25-30 minutes.

Though I don't doubt that rebounding has all the benefits listed above, I think most people who read the headline would read "as effective" as "as effective for weight loss."  I'm not sure how bouncing on a surface that actually assists you in bouncing could have a calorie burn similar to running, where you have to fight gravity all by yourself, let alone burn three times as many. It's a misleading graphic.

If something feels easier than running, chances are it's easier, not harder. I don't like rebounding anyway -- I'm afraid of stepping in the wrong place and falling and twisting my ankle. 

A Livestrong article I found suggested that the calories burned for rebounding were similar to running at 4 mph (15-minute miles). Most runners run faster than that. The article calls rebounding "more efficient" than running because it produced "the same biochemical effects of running with less demand on the heart." I'm not sure what that means, but an exercise that puts less demand on the heart is not providing the same cardiovascular conditioning.

I think all of these "which is better" questions are silly, because the best exercise is one you enjoy and will do regularly. But I think there is a lot of misinformation out there and it's important not to let a calorie readout or misleading statistics distract from your body's own wisdom. 

1 comment:

  1. I had totally fallen off Audible's email list. They were not going in spam, don't know where they are. Audible is working on it. Thanks for copy.

    I am with you on worrying about twisting ankle or worse.


"Count your calories, work out when you can, and try to be good to yourself. All the rest is bulls**t." -- Jillian Michaels at BlogHer '07