My problem: For aerobic exercise, my target heart rate is 120. I aim to exercise at that level for say 30 minutes per day.
Now, if I "walk as hard as possible" I only get to about 100, 105.
Unfortunately I'm just too old, fat, and my knees are too weak, for now, to actually jog or run.
Solution: very fortunately there's a perfect hill near me: at a strong walk, it produces 120 bpm. Fantastic. I am so lucky about that hill!
Problem: from the bottom to the top, it's about 13, 14 minutes.
Now, I amble down the hill in around 6-7 minutes, with my heartrate down to perhaps 100, 105.
So as you can see, my regime there is along the lines:
at 120: 13 minutes
at 100: 7 minutes
at 120: 13 minutes
at 100: 7 minutes
at 120: 13 minutes
at 100: 7 minutes
(either two or three "laps" thereof).
So, I certainly get a wonderful 20 or 30 mins at 120 bpm -- BUT interrupted by easy-going doddles at around 100/105.
My question, does sport science have anything to say about this? Am I completely wasting my time, is there no beneficial effect from "10, 10, 10" minutes (with pleasant pauses in between) compared to 30 minutes?
I'm sure you understand me --- What do you experts think? That's the question in a nutshell. Thanks!!!!!!!!!