Cardio - does it make a difference if...

withchaco

1) doing cardio for 60 minutes straight

2) doing two 30-minute sessions (within a single day)

Would there be any difference, calorie expenditure-wise? Provided the intensity remains pretty much constant, that is.

I realize doing it in a single long session would probably be better for improving endurance, but I'm wondering about the calories.

ageros

You will burn a lot of calories that way, yes. Its mostly going to depend on your heart rate to determine how many calories you burn. I see no problem with doing split cardio.

Too much cardio can cause your body to turn catabolic and begin to eat muscle instead of fat. I, unfortunately, don't know what the limitations are that cause the catabolic state so you'll have to look that up. Also, consider doing some HIIT(High Intensity Interval Training) as well. Its definitly worth reading up on!

lovejoydavid

I know that the concept of the so-called afterburn has been disproven many times over, so the idea of keeping an elevated metabolism between work outs by splitting works outs is pretty much nonsense. As such, splitting a one hour work out in favor of two 30 minute ones will only get you benefit if you use the rest between the sessions to, in fact, increase intensity. I use two-a-days and crosstraining splits just for that purpose, though I do it for the performance benefit (and eat to recover from each).

withchaco

Thanks for the responses! I was wondering if splitting it would result in LESS calorie spent, haha. Didn't even know there was this afterburn theory out there.

bluecutipy

i remember reading in a copy of oxygen fitness magazine for women that they both are the same. But in my opinion, I think no matter how you get your exercise in, at least your doing it.

lovejoydavid

Thanks for the responses! I was wondering if splitting it would result in LESS calorie spent, haha. Didn't even know there was this afterburn theory out there.

You might not be wrong, in that the warm up/cool down time in a single 60 minute work out will likely be less than warm up/cool down on a 30/30 split, which could result in a net loss of calories burned. You will really need to monitor distance, peak and average heart rate, etc to be sure that you are getting the benefits that you are looking for.

Saffyra

The best exercise is the one you'll do!

That said, youd burn the same amount of calories but you would burn more fat with the one hour because you would be on long enough to burn through your stores of glycogen in the first half hour.

At least thats what ive read and hope is true.

withchaco

Thanks for the responses! I was wondering if splitting it would result in LESS calorie spent, haha. Didn't even know there was this afterburn theory out there.

You might not be wrong, in that the warm up/cool down time in a single 60 minute work out will likely be less than warm up/cool down on a 30/30 split, which could result in a net loss of calories burned. You will really need to monitor distance, peak and average heart rate, etc to be sure that you are getting the benefits that you are looking for.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I managed to get the average heart rate up to my usual 60 minute session when I split it into two sessions today, so hopefully I didn't overcount :S

arc918

The best exercise is the one you'll do!

That said, youd burn the same amount of calories but you would burn more fat with the one hour because you would be on long enough to burn through your stores of glycogen in the first half hour.

At least thats what ive read and hope is true.

my understanding is that the body (liver?) store ~ 2,000 calories of glycogen (this is why runners hit the wall after 18-20 miles as they run out of glycogen stores)

I don't believe you can impact it either way after only an hour of running (but I'm just a runner, not a nutritionist)