Two 30-minute jog vs. one 60-minute jog

qkrzazzang

Does it make any difference in one-hour jog opposed to splitting in two? I've tried both, and it seemed like I was more willing to workout the next day when I did two 30-minute jog, but if 60-minute is better, I'm willing to do that. Some people say the fat starts to burn about 20 minutes after exercising so the 60-minute is better, some say doing 2 sessions is better because of an extra after-burn effect. So I don't know what..

My main goal is to burn fat and lose weight.
(My brisk walk is at about 3.8~3.9mph and jogging is at 4.5mph)

IsaackGMOON

From a losing weight stand point, all that is needed a caloric deficit.

Mr_Knight

It depends on what you're after. In terms of raw calorie burn, they'll be about the same. But...the longer run, if you don't eat during the run, can cause a bigger fat-burning adaptation.

Note that there is a big difference between "brisk walk" and running. If doing the shorter time twice lets you do the whole thing running, that would burn a lot more than doing an hour straight of walk-run.

MeanderingMammal

qkrzazzang wrote: »

Does it make any difference in one-hour jog opposed to splitting in two?

Running for 60 minutes will start to improve your aerobic capacity far more than running for two periods of thirty minutes a few hours apart.

What would give you more gains again would be to take your total running time in the week and split it into two or three shorter to moderate length runs, say 30-40 minutes, and one longer run of up to a couple of hours. That'll give you a spread of physiological benefits.

Some people say the fat starts to burn about 20 minutes after exercising so the 60-minute is better, some say doing 2 sessions is better because of an extra after-burn effect. So I don't know what..

The effect is negligible at less than 90 minutes of continuous running. I'd also caution listening to anyone who talks about afterburn effect and suggests that it makes any meaningful difference. They don't know what they're on about. That extra two calories really isn't worth the hassle of going out twice.

(My brisk walk is at about 3.8~3.9mph and jogging is at 4.5mph)

I would concentrate on getting time on your feet, so running for at least 60 minutes at a time, in order to improve your pace.

Mr_Knight

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

What would give you more gains again would be to take your total running time in the week and split it into two or three shorter to moderate length runs, say 30-40 minutes, and one longer run of up to a couple of hours. That'll give you a spread of physiological benefits.

+1

jmoya0405

I was in the same predicament 3 weeks ago. I myself got better results doing 2 secessions than a longer one. Doing the 2-30 minute secessions allowed me to do faster intervals and helped me lose a good amount of BF. Add me and I'll give you tips on how to help improve your fat loss.

caci88

I read a study once that said it doesn't make a difference.. plus I reckon you'd push more in the half hour because you know it's over sooner

7lenny7

IsaackGMOON wrote: »

From a losing weight stand point, all that is needed a caloric deficit.

That is certainly true. Of course, burning more calories by exercising is one of two ways of creating that calorie deficit so I'm not sure of your point.

Siran12001

I'd say it depends on your speed. If you run more miles in your 2 30min runs compared to your one hour run, you should burn more calories. If your speed is the same in both, it probably doesn't make much of a difference.

KANGOOJUMPS

I split everything up I do...

beemerphile1

Two separate workouts will burn slightly more calories but I repeat, slightly.

The reason is that you have an accelerated burn for a while after a workout. For calculations let's say an increased burn for 15 minutes after a workout.

The math would indicate that by doing two workouts rather than one, the accelerated calorie burn would be an extra 15 minutes.

It really is a minimal difference.

robertw486

I don't run, but for me time efficiency comes into the picture. In a single workout I cool down once, shower, and get on with my day. If I work out more than once I've got the extra cool down time to consider, not to mention possibly not smelling the best for a while if I don't shower in between!

barryplumber

I do two runs everyday, a 25 minute and a 35 minute I find I have more energy to maintain a 6.5 mile/hr pace. Works for me and not drained for the test of the day

MeanderingMammal

beemerphile1 wrote: »

The reason is that you have an accelerated burn for a while after a workout. For calculations let's say an increased burn for 15 minutes after a workout.

Given the slow speed described the extra calorie or two from EPOC really doesn't make a difference. The originator will burn more in getting changed for the extra time.

If anything I'd say that only running for two short periods is counterproductive.

Cherimoose

Shorter sessions will probably leave you with less hunger afterward (less likely to overeat) and more energy (greater activity level). Some studies show no difference, while some show greater benefits from multiple sessions:

"short-bouts of exercise may enhance exercise adherence. Short-bouts of exercise may also enhance weight loss and produce similar changes in cardiorespiratory fitness when compared to long-bouts of exercise. Thus, short-bouts of exercise may be preferred when prescribing exercise to obese adults."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8963358

"repeated bouts of exercise cause enhanced fat metabolism compared with a single bout of prolonged exercise of equivalent total exercise duration."
http://jap.physiology.org/content/102/6/2158.abstract

"provides comparable, and in some cases greater, health and fitness benefits"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16506860

7lenny7

Big picture...whatever you enjoy doing most will be the most sustainable exercise and therefore have the most long term benefits.