LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of
those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than
Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated
my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have -
darn incline walking is not easy.

Joyce

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote:

Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce