Curious about cardio times

aippolito1
aippolito1 Posts: 4,894 Member
edited September 21 in Fitness and Exercise
So... I've been planning to work out for x amount of minutes and burning x amount of calories. I put it in my diary and figure out what I need to eat to get all those calories gone by the end of the day. But here's the thing: sometimes I get lazy and don't want to do the work out I planned and figure I can do a different work out but that work out would burn me more calories for about half the time or I will do another activity just harder so I burn more quicker. Would it be more beneficial to do the activity that takes longer because my heart rate will be elevated longer or would it be about the same as doing the other, since I'm burning the same amount of calories but in a shorter amount of time?

See, in recent years I've heard for weight loss, you need to start with at LEAST 20 minutes of cardio... but then there's the theory of heart rate "fat zones" and whatnot. I just don't want to do the shorter activity if it's not going to be as beneficial as the longer. Usually it's just comparing 15 minutes. If I walk for 30 minutes, I can burn close to 300 calories...or I could rollerblade moderately for less time and burn that much... SO CONFUSING. I just want to see if I should keep doing what I'm doing or stick with original work outs planned.
I've been trying to aim for an hour of cardio a day (twice a day) but haven't achieved that yet... but right now, my calorie burn is pretty high so I'm just wondering if I should still aim for the hour or just set a calorie burn goal. I don't have a heart rate monitor yet so I can't make any goals pertaining to my heart rate at this time.

EDIT - But then I've heard shorter more intense work outs are more beneficial than long drawn out work outs that are at moderate pace. Walking is really relaxing for me and I usually do it at a fast enough pace that I'm getting a good calorie burn (like I said, 10 calories per minute or 300 per 30 minutes or whatnot)... and I know running intervals (as I have been) burns more body fat because you're confusing your muscles and metabolism... gah! I just don't know which side to believe.

I have 23 lbs left to lose and have been stuck at this weight since APRIL and I'm trying real hard to eat right, work out right, work out ENOUGH, drink a ton of water, WATCH my sodium, watch my sugar, eat my fruits & vegetables, sleep enough, etc. and just want to lose at least a lb!

Replies

  • balfonso
    balfonso Posts: 370 Member
    Well keep at what you're doing if you're comfortable with working out longer than 20mins.

    See, I get bored quite quickly and I'm usually pushed for time so I prefer doing interval training such as a Tabata workout (20secs work out, 10secs rest and alternate for 8 rounds = roughly 4mins with 5 different sets of cardio and strength exercises =20mins)

    I still need to get a heart rate monitor to know how much I'm burning. But I feel it's starting to work for me now as I'm seeing some noticeable improvements in the last few weeks.

    You could always alternate your workouts which is probably better for the body as your body won't get used to the same type of training day by day. It's always best to vary your workouts, perhaps twice a week do an "intense workout" and other days do "light workouts" and see how that goes?

    Good luck!
  • aippolito1
    aippolito1 Posts: 4,894 Member
    Well, I've been doing intervals of walking & running in the mornings (about every other day) and then on strength days, I walk afterwards. I have some roller blades but am scared to use them...but know I could burn the same amount in less time tonight if I did that instead of walking. I also have a bike but my tire is flat so once I get a new one, I can start incorporating that too so it's not the same thing...

    I just want to know which would be more effective for fat burning. I'm building muscle fine but my body fat is still hanging on, even though I've increased cardio so I'm thinking I need to be focusing more on MINUTES of cardio, rather than calories burned.
  • amyfritz
    amyfritz Posts: 33
    The american college of sports medicine recommends 150 minutes of cardio weekly for general health. For weight loss it is recommended to exercise 60-90 minutes most days.

    You are absolutely right about the intensity thing, you can burn more calories in less time if you do it more vigorously, but they still recommend more time, so you are right on about doing minutes rather than calories.
  • balfonso
    balfonso Posts: 370 Member
    The american college of sports medicine recommends 150 minutes of cardio weekly for general health. For weight loss it is recommended to exercise 60-90 minutes most days.

    You are absolutely right about the intensity thing, you can burn more calories in less time if you do it more vigorously, but they still recommend more time, so you are right on about doing minutes rather than calories.

    Yes true on more minutes. An example I suppose (but not a very healthy one- well he looks ill) is 50Cents' shocking weight loss where he spent a "supposedly" 3 hours a day on a treadmill.
  • dtraylor
    dtraylor Posts: 32
    Don't forget, that at your age, you have to get your heart rate up pretty good to see a benefit from walking. I walk every day at 3.5-4mph in 10 minute intervals (break time) and my heart rate is snoozin at that speed (I walk with others) so I don't get a lot of fat burn benefit, just the relaxation and circulation benefit. At that speed, and my 172 lbs, I only burn ~48 calories in 10 minutes, so for you to see 100 calories burned in 10 minutes, you must be really flying when you walk, or you are grossly overestimating the speed you are traveling. I used a GPS and a known distance to verify my speed as well as a heart rate monitor to verify the calorie burn to see what good I was doing myself on those short walks.

    If you are really travelling that fast to burn 300 calories in 30 minutes, then good job, you should keep doing that, daily, and then add a little run or skate that really gets your heart rate soaring for as long as you can, 10, 15, or 20 minutes would be great every other day. Then gradually phase out the walk and extend your running time. For me, it's quite an effort to walk fast enough to burn 100 calories per 10 minutes, it's even hard for me to maintain that rate on my elliptical, but I can easily exceed that when running or bike riding. Get a heart rate monitor, they really help.

    Doug
  • steve8113
    steve8113 Posts: 21 Member
    you need to do more than 30 mins in one session ideally. After 30 mins you start to use your fat stores greater than you do in the first 30 mins. when you start to do exercise you initially start to use carb stores as ur energy source. this use of carbs is due to the increase in insulin levels at the onset of exercise. at the 30 min mark the levels of insulin go down so u then burn fat rather than carbs. so ideally u want to workout in the morning when ur insulin levels are lowest so u can increase fat utilization. but make sure u drink water first ;) as u will be dehydrated.
  • Youshagbaby
    Youshagbaby Posts: 4
    This subject is very complex, no wonder you have some confusion. There is no 'key' to it all, but rather a combination. Burning more calories while going fast seems simple enough. However, not all calories are the same. At some point the cal’s you are burning will stop being from fat. A sprinters primary fuel source is sugar vs. fat. Ideally you want to maximize the amount of fat cal’s you burn during a period of time. Your fitness level needs to be addressed. As you become more fit, you will not get the same results from the same effort you have been... you plateau. Heart Rate Zone training will help push past this by working your body at different levels that are tuned into your specific fitness level.

    I could go on and on but would just be overload. If you or anyone would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact me.

    Recommended reading on this topic and the reasons behind it all: Covert Bailey’s, Smart Exercise.
  • steve8113
    steve8113 Posts: 21 Member
    This subject is very complex, no wonder you have some confusion. There is no 'key' to it all, but rather a combination. Burning more calories while going fast seems simple enough. However, not all calories are the same. At some point the cal’s you are burning will stop being from fat. A sprinters primary fuel source is sugar vs. fat. Ideally you want to maximize the amount of fat cal’s you burn during a period of time. Your fitness level needs to be addressed. As you become more fit, you will not get the same results from the same effort you have been... you plateau. Heart Rate Zone training will help push past this by working your body at different levels that are tuned into your specific fitness level.

    I could go on and on but would just be overload. If you or anyone would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact me.

    Recommended reading on this topic and the reasons behind it all: Covert Bailey’s, Smart Exercise.

    thats very true, but the thing u have to be aware of is the intensity, at higher intensities you use carbs rather than fat. so best would be long endurance type events. the truth is that you can burn more calories at a higher intensity, but these aren't always the calories u want to burn, ie carbs. the reason sprinters use carbs is because its short bursts at high intensity. i agree with the heart rate, it will really help you as u can tell you roughly what intensity your sitting at so u know if ur either over/under doing it
  • Sparksfly
    Sparksfly Posts: 470 Member
    I was plateaued for a month and didn't know what to do. I increased my calories and changed my exercise routine.

    I think the cardio really boosted it all because I REALLY intensified my workouts. I run on the treadmill now where I am HEAVY HEAVY breathing doing intervals at 6mph and 9mph alternating minute to minute for 30 minutes. That's the only thing that worked for me.

    It's how I used to feel during pre-season for high school field hockey. I would be DYING but that's what kept me small in high school. REALLY push yourself during your cardio workouts and underestimate your cals burned.

    I did 35 minutes on the arc trainer at a level 9 incline and 35 level resistance. The machine said I burned 600 calories, usually what I aim for, but I subtract about 40% of that total.

    Try to push as hard as your body will allow. That's what's been working for me...so far.
  • dtraylor
    dtraylor Posts: 32
    but the thing u have to be aware of is the intensity, at higher intensities you use carbs rather than fat.

    This is not true. At higher intensities you are burning more carbs for sure, but you also burn more fat. It has been proven that higher intensity workouts will burn more fat than low intensity "fat burning" workouts for the same length of time, but many folks just starting out can not maintain that level of intensity.

    The reason for this usage is how the body provides fuel to itself and depends on how bad it needs it. When you are working out hard, your body needs fuel NOW! It is still pulling from the fat stores, even faster now, but that is not getting there fast enough, so it adds more easy to burn carbs when they are available, and will even use nearby muscle cells to provide fuel if it needs it badly enough. Your body is smart enough to do the right thing, as long as it does not think you are in danger of starvation, it will use the fat. So push yourself!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories