Does 3x10 = 30?

emmab0902

When it comes to cardio, does 3 lots of 10 minutes, say on the elliptical equate to 30 minutes solid? Or are there advantages over doing either 3 shorter workouts or one longer one?

I know a lot of health promotion stuff talks about doing short sessions several times a day for those who would otherwise be couch potatoes, but for people who are aiming for fat loss, fitness and improved body composition, is it six of one, half dozen of the other or not?

LilMissFoodie

I think it depends a lot on the person. For me, I don't think 10 minutes of walking 3 times a day does anything, I do way more walking than that just as my normal life. For running, if I do 10 minutes I can feel it but I think (I don't monitor it) my heartrate goes much higher and I have a better workout if I do 30 minutes all together, obviously it also requires some endurance. So I am guessing that from a fitness perspective that 30 > 3x10. I am guessing though that while my heartrate may go a little higher, I would probably still burn about the same (unless you are counting warm up/cool down in the time).

IronSmasher

No, it's not the same. If I put the elliptical on cardio mode, it can take up to 15 minutes for the machine to have given me enough resistance for my heart rate to reach cardio level.

Studies have shown advantages in splitting an hour workout into two half hour workouts where you raise your heart rate for a period, however if these obviously have to be of a sufficient length to have the desired affect.

Obviously, as with practically any rule, there maybe exceptions. The application of 3x10 may be brilliant for special populations such as the morbidly obese or infirm.

emmab0902

No, it's not the same. If I put the elliptical on cardio mode, it can take up to 15 minutes for the machine to have given me enough resistance for my heart rate to reach cardio level.

What if the heart rate is into the cardio level within the first couple of minutes?

yeabby

http://www.livestrong.com/article/330145-longer-workouts-vs-shorter-workouts-for-weight-loss/

IronSmasher

No, it's not the same. If I put the elliptical on cardio mode, it can take up to 15 minutes for the machine to have given me enough resistance for my heart rate to reach cardio level.

What if the heart rate is into the cardio level within the first couple of minutes?

That would be an example of the exceptions I mentioned. I don't know enough about special populations to advise yet, but yes I would expect this is an indication that the desired effects would be happening.

emmab0902

Just because your heart is beating faster, doesn't necessarily mean you're burning more energy. It just means more blood is flowing through your system. For example holding your breath will increase your heart rate, but it doesn't do much for energy production.

Hmm so if heart rate monitors go by heart rate, does that mean they potentially overestimate calorie burn also?
I did actually know that as I have a heart condition that sees my heart rate suddenly shoot to 240 while resting. Always slacked me off that didn't give me fitness or calorie burn when it happened!

ejohndrow

Both ways of exercise are helpful if you do them correctly. There are day s I do 10's or 15;s on the machines; rowing, treadmill, and elliptical-it all all depends on the intensity and level you set it to. I can get my heartrate up to the cardio level within minutes on these machines and keep them there, you get done get a drink and rest for a minute then hop onto the next machine. But, there are also days when I want to work on stamina and will do my complete 40 min cardio workout on the elliptical. Or there is even a workout I do which is 5 min running, abs,bench press, clean and press, and kettle bell swing which also keeps the heartrate up at the cardio burn level. For me all of these work, and they keep my body guessing, a lot of it depends on the intensity in which you do them.

IronSmasher

Just because your heart is beating faster, doesn't necessarily mean you're burning more energy. It just means more blood is flowing through your system. For example holding your breath will increase your heart rate, but it doesn't do much for energy production.

Hmm so if heart rate monitors go by heart rate, does that mean they potentially overestimate calorie burn also?
I did actually know that as I have a heart condition that sees my heart rate suddenly shoot to 240 while resting. Always slacked me off that didn't give me fitness or calorie burn when it happened!

It doesn't even necessarily mean more blood is flowing in such cases.
All calorie estimates are exactly that, but there's more to fitness than calorie burns.

Your progress with your meds (I'd guess) would be more to do with your cardio sessions than your weight loss since you were never that heavy.

emmab0902

Just because your heart is beating faster, doesn't necessarily mean you're burning more energy. It just means more blood is flowing through your system. For example holding your breath will increase your heart rate, but it doesn't do much for energy production.

Hmm so if heart rate monitors go by heart rate, does that mean they potentially overestimate calorie burn also?
I did actually know that as I have a heart condition that sees my heart rate suddenly shoot to 240 while resting. Always slacked me off that didn't give me fitness or calorie burn when it happened!

It doesn't even necessarily mean more blood is flowing in such cases.
All calorie estimates are exactly that, but there's more to fitness than calorie burns.

Your progress with your meds (I'd guess) would be more to do with your cardio sessions than your weight loss since you were never that heavy.

Actually me coming off my heart meds is two fold. I initially cut down so I could get my HR up while exercising. Then in recent weeks my resting HR dropped to 38 and doc wanted me off them.

joehempel

The best example I can come up with is that when you are in a sauna.

Your heart is pumping like crazy to make you sweat to help you cool down.

But you aren't burning many calories regardless of your HRMs.

Im not really a believer in HRMs because they are just estimates, and usually poor estimates. In my opinion its more of a mental thing, it helps you keep on track if you have something tangible to look at. Really, I bet if you just ate healthy and exercised you would see the same results if you didn't use an HRM

fiberartist219

Honestly, in terms of losing fat, I have found that working out in ten minute spurts is just fine. I can't jump rope for more than 12 minutes at a time. Even those few minutes eat up some calories and allow me a little more freedom in what I eat.

It doesn't take long at all for my heart rate to rise. I just remember when I was using the monitors that you hold on to with the elliptical at the gym that it only takes a few strides for my heart rate to change. I would usually try to go for about 20 minutes, but it made me feel like crap by the time I was done. I frequently got my heart rate all the way up to 170 after just a couple minutes, and boy, that is uncomfortable to say the least. I would have to slow down to get my heart rate at a more comfortable level, and then I looked around and I was still going slower than everyone else. I can tell that I am really out of shape, so maybe that's why I get so much benefit from such little amount of working out.

Who knows. Just do what you want to do and see if it works for you or not.

lin7604

from what i have been told is it's good either way as long as you are exercising...for fat burning i also have been told that you need a good 20 min workout with your heart range in that zone for it to be beneficial not necessarily 45-1hr, etc... just a good solid 20 min at your heart range.

koosdel

It's entirely dependant on your goals. If all you want is a certain number at the end of the day, its fine. Heck.. do one minute thirty times.

If you actually want o do something to improve your fitness, stay on the machine until you're done.

gazz777

In my case, I would have spent 30 minutes on Google trying to find out. Not a good exercise for an 'over-thinker' like me.

When I started walking I was like .. "Should I go this way or that way". I stopped thinking too much and just kept walking forward.

I don't have access to a machine, but if I did, maybe 1 x 30 one time and 3 x 10 another.

Truth be told, I'm so hyperactive that 10 mins is usually enough for me. My Physio told me it's better to go longer and slower than more sessions. Hah ! Hyperactive Hypermobility ! Got the music to slow me down and it works. SloFlo / Tai Chi will be interesting !

ejohndrow

Honestly, in terms of losing fat, I have found that working out in ten minute spurts is just fine. I can't jump rope for more than 12 minutes at a time. Even those few minutes eat up some calories and allow me a little more freedom in what I eat.

It doesn't take long at all for my heart rate to rise. I just remember when I was using the monitors that you hold on to with the elliptical at the gym that it only takes a few strides for my heart rate to change. I would usually try to go for about 20 minutes, but it made me feel like crap by the time I was done. I frequently got my heart rate all the way up to 170 after just a couple minutes, and boy, that is uncomfortable to say the least. I would have to slow down to get my heart rate at a more comfortable level, and then I looked around and I was still going slower than everyone else. I can tell that I am really out of shape, so maybe that's why I get so much benefit from such little amount of working out.

Who knows. Just do what you want to do and see if it works for you or not.

Slower isn't necessarily bad. I go slower at times, but I have it set at a level 16 and hill, so the times I 'm slower than people around me, I know it's most likely because my resistance is higher. Just do what works for you.