Seperating a 30/60 min cardio workout

C

Crystal07281987

0
Is it better to do cardio all in one on going session without stopping for 30/60 min? Or is it the same when you do 15 min on a treadmill and 15 min on the eliptical that totals 30 mins? I guess what I am trying to say is that is it the same calorie burning results to do a 15 min workout take a break and come back to do a 15 min workout vice versa with doing 20min 20 min 20min=60mins with breaks in between?

It works the same with 20mins here 20mins there 20 mins again=60 mins? Same with 15min and 15min. Hope I am not confusing here. :animal3:
 
You're not going to be building up any stamina breaking it down like that. Also, I've read in magazines that that kind of exercise is also less effective for burning calories than if you did a longer cardio session.
 
It depends on your fitness and what you are trying to do, info that we don't have + stats, which means we would be shooting in the dark trying to give you a good answer
 
Skipping past what fitlife said, which is of course true and to the point and actually in the sticky nobody ever reads... work done is work done, in your specific case.

If it's easier for you to do four 15 minute sessions than it is to get 60 mins due to your schedule, then, well, the choice is obvious. Speaking in a very general sense, shorter sessions like that with full rest aren't going to be as beneficial in terms of your aerobic fitness, but if your primary goal is creating a negative energy balance to lose some fat before your wedding then that (optimal gain in aerobic fitness) doesn't matter as much as increasing the ratio of total calories expended to total calories ingested by whatever healthy exertion is available to you in sessions of whatever duration.
 
julie6928569 said:
You're not going to be building up any stamina breaking it down like that. Also, I've read in magazines that that kind of exercise is also less effective for burning calories than if you did a longer cardio session.
Click to expand...

absolutely incorrect. 90 minutes of working out is 90 minutes of working out whether its 90 minutes straight or 3 30 minute sessions. taking a break in between provides you with some rest time/water break time. it can be more effective for helping push yourself harder for the shorter pieces than if you tried to do 90 minutes straight. Remember calories are based on total distance not total time.

spending 4 years as a collegiate rower i can count on 1 hand the number of long distance aerobic workouts we did where a rest period was not incorporated. it helps you regroup and refocus and push just as hard for the next one. our workouts were never 90 minutes straight because we have no races that were longer than 25 minutes (on a bad day). It was better to push harder for the seperate pieces to know the limits for a similar piece as opposed to something that was just way out there and non-comparable.

Now if the OP's question was in regards to using different machines and the calories one would burn on different machines then yes different machiens will cause you to burn a different number of calories.

edit: and yes focus is right...if you are looking to increase overall aerobic fitness and have a very high level of stamina, doing 90 minutes straight would be probably be better...but in the end if you can complete any 90 minute workout whether broken up or straight through at a decent intensity you are already in pretty good aerobic shape.
 
Last edited:
For cardiovascular health, the conventional wisdom was that exercise should be in at least 20-minute intervals, but now the trend is to recommend whatever a person is willing and able to do, whether it be in 10, 15, 20 -minute intervals. That said, I think continuous workouts are always better for cardio and certainly for endurance than shorter durations.

As for fat burn, I don't think it makes much difference as long as you burn the same number of calories.
 
I disagree firefreak.
I'm no good at running. I can run for 15 minutes, no problem. I cannot run for 60 minutes.

Never exceeding 15 minutes of running means I'll never build up the stamina/ability to run 60 minutes.


Also to the orignal question...I'm a little unclear. How long were you going to take a break between sessions?
If you're talking about cycling 15 minutes, then walking to a treadmill and running 15 minutes...that's fine. But if you meant taking a longer break between them...then that isn't ideal.

The longer you can keep your heart rate up, the better it is for your cardiovascular system (assuming you're not pushing it beyond what's healthy/safe of course). So, you should see better improvment from one 60 minute session a day, vs four 15 minute sessions per day.

Now if someone simply cannot do more than 15 minutes of cardio (i.e. very out of shape, or a medical condition) then four 15 minute sessions is definitely better than nothing at all.
Gotta crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run, and run before you can complete a marathon :)
 
malkore said:
I disagree firefreak.
I'm no good at running. I can run for 15 minutes, no problem. I cannot run for 60 minutes.

Never exceeding 15 minutes of running means I'll never build up the stamina/ability to run 60 minutes.
Click to expand...


If you do multiple sets of 15, 20 or 30 minutes you are essentially doing a longer workout. Yes doing it straight through will allow you more overall stamina, but the reality is, letting your heart rate drop for a bit between each set will not be horribly detrimental to your overall fitness and cardiovascular stamina. I'm not talking 15 minute breaks between sets...more like 2-3 minutes to drop the heart rate and maybe water up quick. Just like you said, you can't run for 60 minutes straight...that's exactly why you break workouts into sets, so that you can complete an overall workout time while guaranteeing that you are doing work for the whole duration instead of crapping out 3/4s of the way through. by doing the sets you can build your stamina and eventually be able to do a total of 60 minutes straight.
 
Good responses.....poorly worded/defined question. Depends on your goals, entirely. I hate when things are left so vague like this.....but the OP probably didn't know.

Just a few thoughts:

If you are trying to build endurance and develop the ability to run for an hour....then taking breaks is not a good thing.

If you are trying to develop 15-minute sprints....say in rowing, running, biking, etc....then yeah, hitting it for 15 and then taking a break and doing it again (re-grouping) is good.

I really don't think the OP was after this info, and that's what you guys are dishing about. I'm thinking the OP wanted to know if taking a break would be adverse OR mixing it up....or something more that this response might answer:

Biking for 60 minutes is fine.....and yes, it's equal to: elliptical for 20 + running for 20 + biking for 20

I asked my nutritionist & trainer....which is better: doing a 2.5-hour bike ride twice per week (total of 5 hours) OR doing Five 1-hour bike rides each day. Both said it's better to break it up. BUT this is for fat-loss. If I were training in anticipation of a 2.5-hour bike race...well, duh!!!! :sport:

If you're at the gym and get off the treadmill for 5 minutes and then jump on the elliptical...you're fine. Many would argue it's optimal to mix it up and hit different muscle groups. That's largely why I spin, run and swim when I'm at the gym: different muscle groups, different motion! I take breaks between activities, stretch, drink a bit, sometimes suck-down some protein shake...no biggy.

So if you're traing for endurance, you probably shouldn't stop...but if your just griinding calories, it's fine. I've come to understand that at low-intensities and even at rest, the body burns a lot of fat. While you're aerobically active, you'll burn a lot of fat and glycogen, but when you slow it down you burn a greater percentage of fat. Taking a break will mean a big reduction in burning glycogen for those minutes, but the fat will continue to burn because your body is spinning-up energy for what it senses is low blood-sugar (and the blood sugar is low because you're burning up sugars in the blood with the exertion/exercise).

When I go on a 2.5-hour ride.....I will burn more total calories if I take a 20 minute break at a half-way point, and those 20 minutes aren't just spent burning the same calories as I am now (sitting here at my desk typing)...during those 20 minutes my body is still spinning-up fat-energy and coping with the 1.5 hour of riding I've done. My metabolism is elevated during exercise. A compromise in endurance perhaps, but if burning fat is your goal, then it's fine.

AT THE SAME TIME....theory holds that we need to exercise for about 20 minutes to really get past the sugars already in our blood and start burning more fat...so after 20 minutes it would seem we start tapping into our fat as a GREATER source of energy for our exercise....so stopping for 3 hours before starting-up again would just put you at the beginning of the need to go 20 minutes before burning into the fat again. I don't think the OP was talking about a 3 hour break, lol....but just to touch on that.

The thing is, at the end of the week, month and even year....it's calories in vs. calories out. Whether is HIIT or LISS, long or short....just move more, eat less and eat healthy. :animal3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top