Intensity and length of time

k8smama

So, I was wondering, which is better----a shorter work out at vigorous intensity or a longer workout at moderate intensity?? I find myself only being able to stay on my stationary bike for about 25 minutes if I do a really intense workout and having alot more aches and pains the next day. Last night I stayed on for a full hour by going at a moderate pace and today feel pretty good. So does it matter? Are there more effects with one vs. the other?

chrlil1

The trick is to figure out what your target heart rate is based on your age/weight and reach that and maintain it for about 20 minutes. For some it is hard to get to their target heart rate thus making the workout really hard whereas others can get to their rate quickly. There should be some charts on the internet to give you your target heart rate for cardio exercise, good luck!

WhiteStar2351

This is one of the current on going debates in fitness professional circles - Steady State VS HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training).

I would be inclined to lean towards HIIT training as there is a lot of medical research emerging showing that it actually produces better results in cardiovascular improvement and weight loss. HOWEVER - this is not a good idea for people that are unconditioned (i.e. can't run at a moderate pace for a minimum of 20 minutes without stopping).

If you ARE conditioned then HIIT is the way to go, 3-4x 20 minute sessions per week (with a 10 minute warmup and cool down).

If you are NOT conditioned then stick with the steady state cardio until you are able to run for 20 minutes not stop at a moderate pace.

The key to progress is incremental training - go slightly harder, or slightly longer each time you train. This will continually force your body to improve - if you carry on doing 30 minutes @ 12kph every day then your body will adapt to cope with that and stop improving.

Good luck!

Ps. Chrlil1 is completely right about using Heart Rate monitors as well. The easiest way to work it out without math/calculators/monitors though is to imagine a scale of 0-10 where 0 is standing still and 10 will make you think you're dying if you keep it up for more then a few minutes. Aim to get to about a 6-7 on that scale! )

myofibril

I think the short answer is do the one you can stick to and burns the most calories overall per workout.

Personally, I prefer HIIT. The reason is simple. Steady state bores me witless and if I had to do it for 60 minutes per time I probably would end up doing no cardio at all.

There are lots of overblown reasons why HIIT is said to be better. It has a higher fat burning potential (9 times more according to one study) as well as EPOC affect. However in reality the amount of actual FAT burned per session of either HIIT or steady state is tiny. 9 times more of virtually nothing is still virtually nothing...

What is of most importance overall is the amount of energy expenditure used (in other words calories burned.) I think for most people that would be in a long steady state session. HIIT seeks to pack that same amount of energy expenditure into a shorter timeframe.