Does it work the same?

Options
HealthyMakeover
HealthyMakeover Posts: 142 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
What would be more efficient for burning the maximum amount of calories?

--- if I walk at a brisk pace for 45 minutes without taking any break,
--- or if I walk for 20 minutes, rest for a few hours, and walk another 25 minutes?

Obviously both are 45 minutes of total walking time.

What is most recommended? Or do they work the same way?

Replies

  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,568 Member
    Options
    Option A: 229 calorie burn

    Option B: 102 + 127 calorie burn

    Brisk walk (3.5 mph) on a flat surface.
  • HealthyMakeover
    HealthyMakeover Posts: 142 Member
    Options
    So it pretty much wouldn't matter how you split it, it all ends up burning the same amount of calories?
  • ThriceBlessed
    ThriceBlessed Posts: 499 Member
    Options
    The only way it would make any difference at all would be if you are extremely out of shape and can't maintain a brisk pace for 45 minutes straight, if that is the case you'll slow down toward the end of the 45 minutes and therefore be burning fewer calories... however if you are able to maintain the same pace either way, then it makes no difference at all.
  • BluesGuitar
    BluesGuitar Posts: 34
    Options
    I would think that option A, on the margin, would be slightly better from a calorie burning perspective, no? That is, if your heart rate is already elevated and your muscles are somewhat taxed by the time you start the second half of your walk, I would assume that your body would have to work a bit harder to keep up the brisk pace during the last part vs going in for a rest, refueling, and returning to the same pace. Not an expert, but that's seems somewhat logical to me.

Categories