Which will burn more calories?
- Thread starter Judyb
- Start date
Actually, very recently a study was published on the matter. They found splitting the exercise in two different bouts instead of one achieved better results in terms of weight loss. However, the study only had 7 people participate in it. Which means? The study was absolutely worthless.
Do whichever fits into your life style the best. If one would go into the enzymatic process of weight loss. Then I would say the one hour session is "technically" better then the two thirty minute sessions. Of course, assuming both are completely equal in all aspects, beyond simply time per workout.
Do whichever fits into your life style the best. If one would go into the enzymatic process of weight loss. Then I would say the one hour session is "technically" better then the two thirty minute sessions. Of course, assuming both are completely equal in all aspects, beyond simply time per workout.
Last edited:
Judyb
New member
Thanks for your response. My lifestyle allows for a lot of flexibility. I just figured with all else being equal, two workouts would be better because the workout would raise your metabolic rate during the workout and for a time after. Am I wrong in this thinking?
The raise in metabolic rate is relative to intensity and duration. Granted, the normal(average) cardio session isn't going to do much in terms of "longer term" metabolic increase.
EPOC or oxygen debt is more greatly increased through things such as intense weight lifting and HIIT.
Basically, if you expend 600 calories a day through one hour of running (for example). Or 300 calories twice a day to total 600 calories. Your still equating to the same overall calorie expenditure.
In other words, it really is about the same thing.
EPOC or oxygen debt is more greatly increased through things such as intense weight lifting and HIIT.
Basically, if you expend 600 calories a day through one hour of running (for example). Or 300 calories twice a day to total 600 calories. Your still equating to the same overall calorie expenditure.
In other words, it really is about the same thing.
JeremyRice
New member
i can see it as being better in theory, working out will burn those calories then, basically equally, but splitting it up will help you to burn more while resting since you will jump ur metabolism with a good boost.
this is interesting
this is interesting
I heard that each time you exercise - your metabolism = at a high for the following 30 minutes (which is why it may be good to eat right afterwards instead of later on in the day).. So, if this is true, exercising twice a day and eating after each exercise session- it will help your metabolism/lose weight.
I have no idea how true this is - just a thought! Good luck
I have no idea how true this is - just a thought! Good luck
If intensity remains exactly the same in the two thirty minute sessions as it does in the 60 minute session. Than the increase in EPOC would be LESS then it would had if it had been contained in one session.
You (in general) Are over thinking this. The rise in metabolic rate from increased oxygen debt generally doesn't exceed 75 calories extra a day. Though, this documented increase comes usually comes from things as intense weight lifting and HIIT.
It won't send it BOOMING, as seems to being thought right now.
Your thinking of a process called the "thermic affect of exercise". Following a meal it can increase the "thermic affect of eating". Basically, moderate exercise following a meal. Can technically increase the amount of calories needed to properly digest the meal.