Which is better...2-30 minutes cardio sessions or 1-60 minut

steelej

I don't know much about fitness. Which would be better or doesn't it make a difference...two 30 workouts or one 60 minute workout???

Disciplined74

I don't either so two cents is all it may be worth but my vote is 2 - 30 minute sessions.

My reason - I have heard that after 20 minutes of workout you get and additional one hour of rev'ed metabolism. So you are getting the same number of minutes of exercise but you are getting an extra hour of reved metabolism by spitting it up like 30 min in the am, 30 in the pm.

Just my thoughts on it -

- Eva

hozik

Either way is great, just depends on your health, fitness, schedule and preference. However, for blood sugar control, multiple small exercise sessions during the day are better.

Egger29

Honestly, it doens't make a difference.

You can get the same benefits from multiple shorter sessions as you would from one long session.

In fact, studies have shown people tend to get more benefit from shorter sessions given that the subjects were more easily able to fit the exercise sessions into their daily routines.

Cardio Health wise however and for total calories burned...you'll get the same benefits either way.

Shawnalee0703

Just keep your heart rate UP there and it doesn't matter too much.

bobdubya

I've been wondering the same thing. I've been doing 30 min elliptical sessions for a while now. So yesterday, I wanted to push it. I just decided to see if I could go double. Did a lot more sweating in 60 continuous mins than even 2 30mins combined. Might be the same amount burned but I know it made me stronger endurance wise. ( more fit )

kvr414

1 60 minute would be better. The longer you can keep your heart rate elevated the more you will strengthen your cardiovascular system and as a result your exercise will be more effective for burning calories.

kvr414

1 60 minute would be better. The longer you can keep your heart rate elevated the more you will strengthen your cardiovascular system and as a result your exercise will be more effective for burning calories.

MassiveDelta

Actually one is better than the other depending on your goals. If its fat burning you definitely want 2 shorter sessions. However if your goal is to actually build your cardio and endurance than the longer sessions is ideal.

izobel

My vote goes to one 60 minute if the exertion level is the same because you have to work harder to sustain the workout as Bobdubya found. 2 30s are absolutely fine though and if done at much higher intensity could well burn more calories. Just don't go below 20 for a single workout.

steelej

Thanks for all the info!!!!!

Bluediesel

If your purpose is to burn fat and lose weight. Then 30 mins will do just fine. What you need to do is intervals. Push yourself by turning the intensity up. Never settle for less. Example on a precore machine put the intensity at 12 run with it non stop for 2 mins....lower it back to 8 then power it up again.....go upto 14 go with it for another 2 mints lower it back to 6 etc. Point is never just sit on a cardio machine and roll with it until 30 to 60 mins. That will not get you to your goals. Burn that fat! Make it until your out of breath. Working out is not about no sweat no comfort. Your there to burn calories and fat. WORK IT WORK IT WORK IT!

karenfelloutofbedagain

Definately 2 twenty-minute sessions! Better yet, 3 twenty-minute sessions. Every time you do at least 15 minutes of aerobic activity, it boosts your metabolism for a few hours afterwards. So, clearly it is better to boost your metabolism twice or thre times instead of just once!

ChancyW

I vote for 2-30 min ones. You're getting up your heart rate two separate times, which may help to increase your metabolism (my opinion).

MacMadame

Which ever one you'll actually do.

vishnusharma

2 30minute sessions might elevate your metabolism longer during the day. This way you could burn more calories throughout the day

LotusF1ower

I don't either so two cents is all it may be worth but my vote is 2 - 30 minute sessions.

My reason - I have heard that after 20 minutes of workout you get and additional one hour of rev'ed metabolism. So you are getting the same number of minutes of exercise but you are getting an extra hour of reved metabolism by spitting it up like 30 min in the am, 30 in the pm.

Just my thoughts on it -

- Eva

Hi Eva

Don't worry about all that, because if you do an hour's worth of cardio, your metabolism is boosted for at least 24 hours, therefore, two 30 min workouts will be the same as one hour workout xxx

BoresEasily

Wow there is a lot of nonsense being talked about in this thread.
First it doesn't matter which you do either is fine. The only reason you'd want to do 60 minutes is if you have a goal to become an endurance athlete. Steady state cardio does NOT increase your metabolism for up to 24 hours after you've exercised nor does steady state cardio for 20-30 minutes however many times a day.

There was mention of being able to get a better workout in a 20 minute time frame and it can be even less. One way your metabolism is boosted throughout the day is if you do HIIT(High Intensity Interval Training). It can make it so that you're burning fat for upto 36 hours afterward. But it's not for someone that's just new to working out. It's mainly for athletes and people that are fit enough to take it on. HIIT is pushing yourself to your max for short bursts and then a recovery period, then the max burst again. A good example would be running sprints at a track. You push yourself as hard and as fast as you can go for 40-50 meters, walk back to the start and then do the same thing again. Usually about a 2:1 or 3:1 difference. For instance 15 seconds with a 30-45 second recovery period and repeat.

There are other ways of doing intervals that are less intense and it will help your cardiovascular endurance and will do more good than a 60 minute workout and that's just simple intervals. On a RPE scale(Rating of Perceived Exertion) of 1-10 you spend a few minutes at a 4-6 and then for a minute you change your intensity to a 7-8. You just switch those out so 2 minutes at a 5 and then 1 minute at a 7 or 8 and switch that out for a 20 minute workout.

The difference between HIIT and regular intervals is that in HIIT you're pushing yourself to your maximum whereas in regular intervals you're only going to a 7 or 8. Before doing either one be sure to speak with a doctor first.

Last thing. The statement made about the only way to improve your cardiovascular endurance is to do longer periods is also false. An experiment at Guelph University in Ontario found that doing HIIT improved the individuals' v02 max considerably both for training at higher intensities, being able to sustain 90% of v02 max for longer periods and also improved their longer steady state endurance power outputs.

On a side note for those that are able to take on HIIT. Don't do it more than 2-3 times a week. It's very hard on the body and if you do it and you're able to get through a full 20 minute workout your first time and you're not a top level athlete you didn't do it right. Most people won't get through more than 5-10 minutes if they're lucky. It makes you feel as though you wish you were dead. Your body is completely drained and you may become dizzy or even throw-up afterwards.

If you would like to the actual experiment that verifies that. Here you go.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/hhns/grad/courses/HHNS6130W09/HHNS6130W09Mar31Perryetal2008.pdf

Here's a less scientific and easier to understand link on what it's all about.
http://www.youronlinefitness.com/fitness-articles/hiit_and_other_interval_training.php

steelej

WOW...thanks again for all the info!!! I'm just getting started and I find that 2 30 minute workouts are better for me right now, but I didn't know if I had to work up to 60 minutes to be more effective or not. I'm trying to lose weight/burn fat, but with my family history, the cardiovascular benefits would be great!

LotusF1ower

Wow there is a lot of nonsense being talked about in this thread.
First it doesn't matter which you do either is fine. The only reason you'd want to do 60 minutes is if you have a goal to become an endurance athlete. Steady state cardio does NOT increase your metabolism for up to 24 hours after you've exercised nor does steady state cardio for 20-30 minutes however many times a day.

There was mention of being able to get a better workout in a 20 minute time frame and it can be even less. One way your metabolism is boosted throughout the day is if you do HIIT(High Intensity Interval Training). It can make it so that you're burning fat for upto 36 hours afterward. But it's not for someone that's just new to working out. It's mainly for athletes and people that are fit enough to take it on. HIIT is pushing yourself to your max for short bursts and then a recovery period, then the max burst again. A good example would be running sprints at a track. You push yourself as hard and as fast as you can go for 40-50 meters, walk back to the start and then do the same thing again. Usually about a 2:1 or 3:1 difference. For instance 15 seconds with a 30-45 second recovery period and repeat.

There are other ways of doing intervals that are less intense and it will help your cardiovascular endurance and will do more good than a 60 minute workout and that's just simple intervals. On a RPE scale(Rating of Perceived Exertion) of 1-10 you spend a few minutes at a 4-6 and then for a minute you change your intensity to a 7-8. You just switch those out so 2 minutes at a 5 and then 1 minute at a 7 or 8 and switch that out for a 20 minute workout.

The difference between HIIT and regular intervals is that in HIIT you're pushing yourself to your maximum whereas in regular intervals you're only going to a 7 or 8. Before doing either one be sure to speak with a doctor first.

Last thing. The statement made about the only way to improve your cardiovascular endurance is to do longer periods is also false. An experiment at Guelph University in Ontario found that doing HIIT improved the individuals' v02 max considerably both for training at higher intensities, being able to sustain 90% of v02 max for longer periods and also improved their longer steady state endurance power outputs.

On a side note for those that are able to take on HIIT. Don't do it more than 2-3 times a week. It's very hard on the body and if you do it and you're able to get through a full 20 minute workout your first time and you're not a top level athlete you didn't do it right. Most people won't get through more than 5-10 minutes if they're lucky. It makes you feel as though you wish you were dead. Your body is completely drained and you may become dizzy or even throw-up afterwards.

If you would like to the actual experiment that verifies that. Here you go.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/hhns/grad/courses/HHNS6130W09/HHNS6130W09Mar31Perryetal2008.pdf

Here's a less scientific and easier to understand link on what it's all about.
http://www.youronlinefitness.com/fitness-articles/hiit_and_other_interval_training.php

I disagree about your metabolism not being speeded up after working out.

You are 100% correct about interval training, I usually do such training once or twice per week, the other sessions I usually do a longer run - say run for an hour or run six or seven miles. You do not have to be a top level athlete to do interval training either, you do need to be fit however and that fitness will come with training. If it were only top level athletes that could do interval training and not be sick afterwards, I would be near the back of the queue believe me lol. My training may consist of warming up for four or five miles jogging at 7-8mph and then 8 x 300m sprints with a 200m walk in between each rep, followed by a warm down, taking me to and hour or just over.

However, other sports that speed up the metabolism will keep it that way for several hours after the activity is stopped, that is fact. Exercises such as swimming, cycling, walking and of course, running are all aerobic and all will keep that metabolism at a faster pace for quite a few hours after stopping.

On a final note, I have to admit another reason I could not be bothered to train twice per day for thirty minutes is that after working up a sweat, that means two showers and two sets of clean clothes after each session doesn't it? That means more washing, more ironing etc etc etc.

I'm gonna stick with my one hour :laugh:

neelsus

I like doing 2/day because I'm less likely to overeat dinner when I've just put effort into my health.

stanmann571

As long as you put 4-6 hours between them, you will get more afterburn from separate sessions.

I'm not sure the benefit is worth the effort, but there is additional benefit.

Your schedule will also have a substantial role in making the decision.

edlanglais5

I would stick to whichever is most manageable for you. Sticking to what works best for your ability and schedule will outweigh any other benefit.

TR0berts

Holy zombie thread, Batman!