Exercise: for longer or more often?

Options
Saxonvoter
Saxonvoter Posts: 34 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Let's say I make a plan to exercise and burn 1500 calories per week and I stick to my eating plan with whatever the calorie deficit might be. Then, I either exercise 5 days/week or alternately on 3 days/week (exercising for longer per session than I would on the 5-day plan). Would the result be any different? Or would these two plans have about the same effect?

I tried googling this but couldn't really find anything on the subject.

Replies

  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    No meaningful difference, assuming all other variables were held basically constant.
  • dougii
    dougii Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    Burning 1500 extra calories per week, whether over 5 days, 3 days, or 1 day is still only burning 1500 calories. No difference in the outcome if all else remains the same.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,683 Member
    Options
    No difference in calorie burn. Where the difference would be is how you feel. Some feel more energized exercising more frequently than less frequently. All in all it's a matter of preference.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • PeterSedesse
    PeterSedesse Posts: 124
    Options
    Yeah, not much of a meaningful difference. Maybe a slight edge for 5 days a week because of the bonus burn you get after finishing a workout. You would get 5 instead of 3.
  • chunkytfg
    chunkytfg Posts: 339 Member
    Options
    From a strain on your body point of view you would be better off doing 5 over 3 workouts. When I up my running volume the first thing I do is up the number of runs I do before I start upping the distance per run.

    As has pointed out from a calories burning point of view 1500 cals is 1500 cals regardless of how many workouts it took to burn it
  • Saxonvoter
    Saxonvoter Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    Okay, thanks for clearing it up. (:
  • tulips_and_tea
    tulips_and_tea Posts: 5,716 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    No difference in calorie burn. Where the difference would be is how you feel. Some feel more energized exercising more frequently than less frequently. All in all it's a matter of preference.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    Yes, calorie difference burned would be minute. What is more important is your performance. Are you ok with working out 5 days a week without getting burned out? Or would you be better off 3 days a week, longer sessions? Also, it doesn't have to be either or. Like the rest of us, our schedules can change abruptly, so just do what works for you each week.
  • jessicapk
    jessicapk Posts: 574 Member
    Options
    Not a big difference but do whichever one you will stick with. That's what will count in the long run (no pun intended!).
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    Options
    Your fitness/endurance would be different. First, longer aerobic workout tends to recruit more fat utilization during the excercise while shorter duration does not. Your body has about one hour of glycogen which is the prefered fuel. Once exhausted (speaking purely those stored in the muscle fibers as opposed to those stored in other major organs but in general it's true regardless where it's store in extreme caloric reduction), fat become the preferred fuel. Given sufficient rest, your body is pretty efficient in replacing the glycogen reserve from the food you eat. Second, the consitution of your muscle fiber is different. Some are for power generation (fast/short) and other (long) are for prolong usage. To become more efficient in fat burning one need to enhance the efficiency of long and ability of fast twitching muscles (type 2) to utilize fat as the primary fuel. Your abilty to convert some short to partial long (keeping it simple but it more complex than this) depending on the stress they are subjected to. Although the calories burn is the same, metabolically what is being used is different. It all dependent on your end goal. For fat lost and increased endurance, longer duration excercise is better (hence most recommendation of 30+ minutes). That said, it also depends on your initial starting point, the severity of the calorie restriction, and available time. To much exercise can actually be counter productive in the short run and stall weight lost.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    PeteSede wrote: »
    Yeah, not much of a meaningful difference. Maybe a slight edge for 5 days a week because of the bonus burn you get after finishing a workout. You would get 5 instead of 3.

    What bonus burn?
  • todney03
    todney03 Posts: 1
    Options
    1500 calories is 1500 calories whichever way you burn them, however, there is a so called "bonus burn" after each exercise session where the residual impact of the exercise makes your metabolism burn calories faster for a period of time, which might point you towards doing more sessions.
    If you want to get aerobically fitter as well as losing weight, I'd go for 3 times/week though as you get more aerobic benefit from longer workouts. Increased aerobic benefit will in the long run translate to the ability to do longer workouts and burn more than 1500/week.

    But my honest advice is that whichever pattern fits best into your weekly routine is the one that you should choose as your success will depend on your ability to keep at it week after week.

    Personally, I like to vary things so I'd say do alternate weeks of 3 and 5 until you figure out which one works best for you. Hopefully, you can come to enjoy it so the idea of doing 5 longer ones and burning >1500 becomes feasible.

    Good luck!

Categories