20 Minutes hard or 40 minutes Moderate

Rai007

Cardio question:

is a longer period of 40 minutes moderate cardio better
or short 20 minutes intense

which yields better results for weight or fat loss ?

paleojoe

I believe 20 minutes intense is slightly better... the takeaway is the same or better results in less time.

BrianSharpe

The one that burns more calories, but..........

fat loss comes from a caloric deficit (ie what you eat) exercise my help with that deficit but should be thought of in the context of health and fitness. Exercise presents a bit of a paradox in terms of weight loss.........you need to eat more to fuel the workouts which negates (at least in part) the additional caloric expenditure.

jardin12

Yep I want to know too - before I hit the gym tomorrow and waste my time doing the wrong thing! It's a great question I think...

jardin12

The one that burns more calories, but..........

fat loss comes from a caloric deficit (ie what you eat) exercise my help with that deficit but should be thought of in the context of health and fitness. Exercise presents a bit of a paradox in terms of weight loss.........you need to eat more to fuel the workouts which negates (at least in part) the additional caloric expenditure.

Someone once told me though that fast workouts burn carbohydrates whereas slower training burns fat. Any truth in this? Sorry OP, hope I'm not butting in..

Ainar

I've always find that doing steady slow/moderate cardio over longer period of time works for me better, for fat loss, than doing short and intense interval training or intense cardio for shorter period of time. Even if both burns same amount of cals.

Many people tell it's opposite for them or that it doesn't matter as far as they burn cals. So I think that it can differ individually how your body will react to this. Try and experiment a little what works for you. For me personally it's moderate for longer period type of cardio. I just notice fat goes away little faster.

Nomi923

I would advise you to go 40 min moderate. This is strictly from personal experience.

A lot of times I've seen and even experienced that people tend to go hard for a short period of time, think they've done a lot because , well they've been sweating a lot, give up, and go home. I would advise the longer workout as, not only will you get a calorie burn that you want, but it will help you gain stamina of not only running but being at the gym and working out.

So, I don't think you should kill yourself for 20 minutes, take it at a moderate for 40 and I think you'll see more of a gain both physically and psychologically.

Anyways that;s just my thinking!

paleojoe

Do both. Variety is key when planing out your fitness strategy. Why does it have to be one or the other?

ksteinbeiser1

Do both. Variety is key when planing out your fitness strategy. Why does it have to be one or the other?

i agree with this ^^ if your body gets used to one way of working out it will start to store the nec. foods to held fuel u for ur workouts... mixing it up challenges ur body!!!

IronPhyllida

From training with army PT's, anything over 40mins gets to burn fat.

sijomial

Someone once told me though that fast workouts burn carbohydrates whereas slower training burns fat. Any truth in this? Sorry OP, hope I'm not butting in..

Very little truth - the so called fat burning zone is sooooo last century!
In reality your body is burning both glycogen (a form of glucose) and fat at all exercise intensities - at lower intensity your will burn a higher proportion of fat, the higher the intensity the smaller the proportion of fat is burned at the time of exercise.

The reason I highlighted proportion is that it's the overall calorie burn that makes the difference.

Really you should be training at the intensity that suits your fitness goals and the time available to exercise. I do both on different days.

msf74

Cardio question:

is a longer period of 40 minutes moderate cardio better
or short 20 minutes intense

which yields better results for weight or fat loss ?

That's pretty much impossible to answer without knowing exactly what you mean by "moderate" or "high", your current level of conditioning, how quickly you can recover from the workouts, what the workouts do to your appetite, what your diet is like etc...

Do the one you can incorporate consistently into your routine or if you can do both then do that.

Azdak

Both, when used properly in a well-designed program.

JoRocka

Doing long steady state cardio is an excellent way to build a larger deficit.

What you really need to remember is that diet is the key to weight loss- fitness is a bonus- but it's not the foundation.

SupermanRitz

"Do both. Variety is key when planing out your fitness strategy. Why does it have to be one or the other?"

This. Also, if you're doing HIIT for your hard 20 minutes it is far superior to 40 minutes of moderate rate cardio. A lot of people fail to realize the aspect of EPOC. With HIIT and going hard for 20 minutes your metabolism will stay elevated for several hours after you're done so you're constantly burning calories at an elevated rate

flywithgeorge

I saw this posted on this site awhile back and find it to be very true.

To lose weight, you need to diet.
To look good in your clothes, you do cardio
To look good naked, you strength train

lucan07

I try to do both mixing up the workouts randomly depending on time available and how I feel, or just do 30 minutes inserting 5 x 2 minute high intensity sections or sprints.

pcdoctor01

20 mins hard.

BenjaminMFP88

They yield different results. Ultimately though, fat loss will come through a caloric deficit. Assuming all of your diet is in check...

40min moderate workout will burn through carbs/fat immediately. EPOC gained will be minimal.
20min HIIT will not burn through any significant amount of carbs/fat but will boost your EPOC significantly allowing for a more sustained fat loss.

I would suggest 3 20min HIIT sessions a week and as many 40min sessions as you like. Just ensure you are maintaining proper caloric intake through this.

paleojoe

I saw this posted on this site awhile back and find it to be very true.

To lose weight, you need to diet.
To look good in your clothes, you do cardio
To look good naked, you strength train

That is awesome!

TR0berts

Don't "major in the minors."

Eat a little less.
Move a little more.
Succeed.

cwolfman13

It really depends on your fitness goals. I personally incorporate one day of HIIT per week that is of higher intensity and shorter duration but I have another 3-4 days of steady state cardio given I'm training for an endurance event....20 minutes of HIIT alone isn't going to prepare me for a century ride...long rides prepare me for my century ride.

I also weight train 3x weekly. Really, you should probably be doing all of the above as part of an overall, intelligent fitness regimen.

Azdak

"Do both. Variety is key when planing out your fitness strategy. Why does it have to be one or the other?"

This. Also, if you're doing HIIT for your hard 20 minutes it is far superior to 40 minutes of moderate rate cardio. A lot of people fail to realize the aspect of EPOC. With HIIT and going hard for 20 minutes your metabolism will stay elevated for several hours after you're done so you're constantly burning calories at an elevated rate

It might be "elevated for hours" but the actual burn during that time is fairly small. With the exception of 1 or 2 outlier studies, the total calories burned due to EPOC is about 100-150. Every little bit helps, but that amount can be easily exceeded with a longer workout.

HIIT workouts are excellent for increasing fitness and good time-savers. Huge calorie burners? Not so much.