being realistic

I'm personally someone who needs to work out and eat better to see any result. In my opinion 20 mins of cardio is way to little. I'd at least be doing 30 mins if not 45. But you need to fit it in to your life style and don't try to force it or it becomes no fun. Hope that helps in the slightest. Good luck to you!

Regarding the workouts themselves, it depends on the goal. It is generally accepted that an interval of 15 minutes is the minimum for your body to use up its sugar reserves and start burning fat for weight loss. If heart health is your goal, you should do at least 30 minutes at 60-80% of your maximum heart rate most days of the week.

Is this true? Four, ten-minute intervals won't burn fat for weight loss?
I did basic web 'research' when I first started adding exercise to my life and doctors, scientists and trainers seemed to overwhelmingly state that 30 minutes is 30 minutes, whether broken up or done consecutively. I don't ask this to be snarky or pretend I have any answers, so I sincerely hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm genuinely curious if what I read was wrong.

OP- I'm not an expert, doctor, or trainer. Aside from all the very good advice here about working on diet first, I can tell you anecdotally that short intervals have been working for me. I credit diet first of course, but I've noticed marked improvements in my fitness abilities with even 10, 15 or 20 minutes at a time. When I first started, I couldn't run at a clip of more than 20 seconds at a time and even then my heart rate was extremely high. Now, I can run 15 minute sessions, with a much lower heart rate. In 5 months, I think I've only had two occasions where I've had 30 consecutive minutes of cardio. So keep it up. It may not be the golden ticket to wait loss, but that doesn't make it any less golden

Is it true? Not sure but I know if works for me. Not sure the poster's source but I first got this information from some Mackie Shilstone material I had. My lay-man interpretation is that the body feels a little threatened in the first few minutes of working out and does not burn as much fat from cardio (in case of emergency). However, when it gets accustomed to the idea that there is no threat, it starts to burn the fat stores. However, it takes a little while for the body to catch on. Talking here about the aerobic range and not the anaerobic range. If your heart rate is extremely high, then you're probably anaerobic.

I'm no nutritionalist or professional trainer so maybe someone with more knowledge can explain it better. I just know that it has worked for me time and time again. Maybe someone else's body has different results.

I have read that 60 min of cardio is often required for weight loss. 30 min 3 times a week for health, but up to 60 min a day for weight loss.

It never really made sense to me, unless it's based on some sort of satiety index or statistics. How much you need to burn to lose should be proportional to how much you consume.

Regarding the workouts themselves, it depends on the goal. It is generally accepted that an interval of 15 minutes is the minimum for your body to use up its sugar reserves and start burning fat for weight loss. If heart health is your goal, you should do at least 30 minutes at 60-80% of your maximum heart rate most days of the week.

Is this true? Four, ten-minute intervals won't burn fat for weight loss?
I did basic web 'research' when I first started adding exercise to my life and doctors, scientists and trainers seemed to overwhelmingly state that 30 minutes is 30 minutes, whether broken up or done consecutively. I don't ask this to be snarky or pretend I have any answers, so I sincerely hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm genuinely curious if what I read was wrong.

OP- I'm not an expert, doctor, or trainer. Aside from all the very good advice here about working on diet first, I can tell you anecdotally that short intervals have been working for me. I credit diet first of course, but I've noticed marked improvements in my fitness abilities with even 10, 15 or 20 minutes at a time. When I first started, I couldn't run at a clip of more than 20 seconds at a time and even then my heart rate was extremely high. Now, I can run 15 minute sessions, with a much lower heart rate. In 5 months, I think I've only had two occasions where I've had 30 consecutive minutes of cardio. So keep it up. It may not be the golden ticket to wait loss, but that doesn't make it any less golden

1) You don't really need to exercise to lose weight. Where it's really relevant is for optimal cardiovascular health.

2) The "burning fats" vs. "burning sugars" is irrelevant through the course of a day. Your body needs x calories per day to maintain its weight, and if it receives less than that, it will go through its reserves. Adding 60 minutes of exercise will add to that x whether you do it in 5-minute intervals spread through the day or all at once, thus causing you to go through the reserves faster. It does tend to go through the sugars first, but it will go through those before it starts burning fat whether you're exercising or sitting watching TV.

I have read that 60 min of cardio is often required for weight loss. 30 min 3 times a week for health, but up to 60 min a day for weight loss.

It never really made sense to me, unless it's based on some sort of satiety index or statistics. How much you need to burn to lose should be proportional to how much you consume.

That is where the 15 minutes to start to burn calories comes in. Apparently that is how long it takes to use up the sugar stored in your system, then you start burning fat and how much fat you burn after that 15 minutes depends on your starting weight, the intensity, the length of exercise, etc. and you continue to burn for a time after unless you add fuel to the body. Someone with more education in this can probably confirm/give specifics/ etc.

Really, folks, losing weight is all in how much you eat vs how much you expend. No need to give information you don't know to be true.

Yes it is, and we are discussing the expend side of the equation.

The problem here is that there are a lot of concepts being discussed. The 30+ minutes is not just about weight loss. You can lose weight doing no exercise. It's about the efficiency of the "workout" and when the body starts to burn "fat"

I have read that 60 min of cardio is often required for weight loss. 30 min 3 times a week for health, but up to 60 min a day for weight loss.

It never really made sense to me, unless it's based on some sort of satiety index or statistics. How much you need to burn to lose should be proportional to how much you consume.

That is where the 15 minutes to start to burn calories comes in. Apparently that is how long it takes to use up the sugar stored in your system, then you start burning fat and how much fat you burn after that 15 minutes depends on your starting weight, the intensity, the length of exercise, etc. and you continue to burn for a time after unless you add fuel to the body. Someone with more education in this can probably confirm/give specifics/ etc.

Really, folks, losing weight is all in how much you eat vs how much you expend. No need to give information you don't know to be true.

Yes it is, and we are discussing the expend side of the equation.

But your "15 minutes to burn through all of your glycogen stores to start to burn calories" is so incredibly ill informed I think most of us thought you were trolling......but you are serious........and I am amazed.....:indifferent:

If your body did burn through all your glycogen stores in 15 minutes, I would not be able to run a half marathon without hitting the wall. Speaking from a running perspective, a carb-loaded human can store about 2000 calories of glycogen in the liver, muscle, and blood. Running burns 1cal per kilogram of weight, per kilometer ran, hence why marathoners require a fat and glycogen burning strategy.

The alluded post is ridiculous on its face.

1) You don't really need to exercise to lose weight. Where it's really relevant is for optimal cardiovascular health.

2) The "burning fats" vs. "burning sugars" is irrelevant through the course of a day. Your body needs x calories per day to maintain its weight, and if it receives less than that, it will go through its reserves. Adding 60 minutes of exercise will add to that x whether you do it in 5-minute intervals spread through the day or all at once, thus causing you to go through the reserves faster. It does tend to go through the sugars first, but it will go through those before it starts burning fat whether you're exercising or sitting watching TV.

I've been doing a lot of research to see what I can find and though I have found some interesting things, I haven't found anything to support the point I previously made regarding 30+ minute work outs.

My Mackie Shilstone source says "To achieve appreciable results, however, studies have shown that you should do aerobic exercises at least three times a week for at least thirty minutes, and resistance exercises two or three times a week, with a day of in between"

However, I haven't been able to find these studies. Instead the government guidelines point towards "Both moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity should be performed in episodes of at least 10 minutes. Episodes of this duration are known to improve cardiovascular fitness and some risk factors for heart disease and type 2 diabetes" http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/guidelines/chapter4.aspx

From a personal point of view, I know that to get my heart rate up, I really have to use resistance for 10-15 minutes but after that my heart rate stays up with less effort.

These were some other interesting points I found in a recent research paper (How effective is Exercise in Producing Fat Loss) hrcak.srce.hr/file/48758 . It's an academic study

*Variations in exercise intensity, an individual's genetic endowment, and fitness level to sustain high levels of fat oxidation makes it difficult to achieve losing 2.2 pounds a week by exercise alone
*Exercise transiently suppresses the sensation of hunger and increases the sensation of fullness
* A significantly faster rate of fat loss, but lower overall rate of weight loss, was achieved with exercise energy expenditure than with equicaloric dietary restriction
*At moderate intensity 65% Max Effort half of energy supplied by free fatty acids of which half from fat deposits and the other half from intermuscular fat. Other half from muscle gylcogen and to a lesser extent from liver glycogen

This is a lot of mumble jumble for many people but it touches on many things that were tossed around.

OP. What I did find in my research was that there are 2 ways that you can get moving again. 1) Change your caloric intake or 2) Change your workout intensity

You may not need to change your workout time, but do you know your current heart rate when working out on the elliptical? Do you know how to do HIIT exercises on the elliptical? Maybe you might need to just stop the elliptical for a while and do what some else suggested and lift a few weights. Resistance training gets your heart rate up.