Does 20 minutes of cardio actually count??
Options
FemmeAndi
Posts: 107 Member
I've read that fat burning only starts to happen after about 30 minutes of cardio! So is it pointless to do 20 minutes? I can burn about 130 cals in 20 mins on an elliptical read by my heart rate monitor.
0
Replies
-
I'm by no means a professional, but any activity is better than no activity! If you can only get in 20 mins at a time, go for it.0
-
wow didn't know about the whole 30 mins for fat burning, gonna wait for someone to answer to this.
but every activity indeed it counts, don't get in the wagon of what is the point, and I may be mistaken and things might have change but the American Heart Asoc. recommend 120 mins of cardio/week and by doing those 20 mins you are hitting that target.0 -
20 minutes of cardio would be a nice thing for me to do for a little heart health, but the way I do cardio...It's not going to help me eat more with my stats.0
-
If you are in a caloric deficit, your body is pretty much always burning fat.
0 -
The 'fat burning zone' is a bit of a misnomer. The only time the body burns 100% fat is at rest which isn't very conducive for altering body composition. Fitness equipment manufacturers jumped on this and used it to sell their equipment making everybody believe that after 20 minutes the body switches from burning glycogen to pure fat for fuel.
Does 20 minutes count... Of course it does. You're not only exercising your cardiovascular system you're adding to your calorie deficit.0 -
Awesome ! Great! Thanks for the info
0 -
Think you havent fully understood what youve read. Its the deficit that matters. It takes some time for the body to burn through its glycogen stores. Keep on exercising.0
-
HIIT training [High Intensity Interval Training] is typically 20 minutes because it's short bursts of all out followed by rest; thus taxing your body more than 60 minutes of steady cardio.0
-
Anything more than nothing counts.0
-
HappyCampr1 wrote: »wow didn't know about the whole 30 mins for fat burning, gonna wait for someone to answer to this.
but every activity indeed it counts, don't get in the wagon of what is the point, and I may be mistaken and things might have change but the American Heart Asoc. recommend 120 mins of cardio/week and by doing those 20 mins you are hitting that target.
The AHA recommends 150 minutes of moderate activity, or 75 minutes/week of intense activity, so it really depends on how hard it is for someone, and also what else they do in their life.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/PhysicalActivity/FitnessBasics/American-Heart-Association-Recommendations-for-Physical-Activity-in-Adults_UCM_307976_Article.jspI've read that fat burning only starts to happen after about 30 minutes of cardio! So is it pointless to do 20 minutes? I can burn about 130 cals in 20 mins on an elliptical read by my heart rate monitor.
I can't speak to the fat burning properties of cardio because I'm not an expert. I just know that burned calories are burned calories, so it all counts for me.
The American Heart Association says you can break the activity up into 15-20 minute intervals if need be for heart health. Now, if you're looking specifically to lower blood pressure, the article says 40 minutes of aerobic exercise is recommended.
I started with 20 minutes and worked my way up to 40 minutes. Once I hit maintenance, I went back down to 20 minutes. I think it counts.
Thank you for the link
0 -
I run 2.5 miles in 20 minutes usually... So pretty sure it counts lol.0
-
-
I cycle to work, normally 20-30 minutes, medium/high intensity. I burn calories and it DEFINITELY helps; Other point to make is exercise of any kind helps your mental state, makes you more alert and is beneficial to health in general, so in my view even 10 minutes is better than nothing, or walking up stairs rather than taking the lift! good luck !0
-
I've read that fat burning only starts to happen after about 30 minutes of cardio! So is it pointless to do 20 minutes? I can burn about 130 cals in 20 mins on an elliptical read by my heart rate monitor.
No it isn't pointless. Don't worry about the "fat burning" which takes place during exercise but rather the "calorie burning" which contributes to your calorie deficit. If you goal is to maximise your weight loss do the exercises you can handle which allow you to burn the most calories in the time you have available.
The idea that fat burning only occurs after 20 minutes isn't correct. It is true that in the early stages of exercise the proportion of carbohydrate used to fuel exercise is greater than fat and the longer the exercise goes on for at a suitable intensity (low to moderate) the proportion of fat to carbohydrate used is greater but it isn't worth worrying about.
Total calories burned is where it's at...0 -
OF COURSE IT COUNTS!0
-
HIIT training [High Intensity Interval Training] is typically 20 minutes because it's short bursts of all out followed by rest; thus taxing your body more than 60 minutes of steady cardio.
This may be correct for improving various aspects of fitness (particularly VO2 Max) but if calorie burn is a person's principal concern then 60 minutes of steady state cardio is going to be more effective generally.0 -
My understanding is that 'fat burning' is not that relevant unless you are an endurance athlete who needs to train your body to burn fat as fuel during events (for example, I am a marathon runner). If you are getting your energy mainly from carbs, that still counts as you will not be storing that energy as fat later on if you have already burnt it off.0
-
HIIT training [High Intensity Interval Training] is typically 20 minutes because it's short bursts of all out followed by rest; thus taxing your body more than 60 minutes of steady cardio.
This may be correct for improving various aspects of fitness (particularly VO2 Max) but if calorie burn is a person's principal concern then 60 minutes of steady state cardio is going to be more effective generally.
60 minutes will burn more calories during the actual activity, but once you stop working out when doing steady state cardio then the calorie burn effectively ends. With HIIT you raise your metabolism creating an after-burn effect due to EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption), so overall in general HIIT will burn more total calories.0 -
HIIT training [High Intensity Interval Training] is typically 20 minutes because it's short bursts of all out followed by rest; thus taxing your body more than 60 minutes of steady cardio.
This may be correct for improving various aspects of fitness (particularly VO2 Max) but if calorie burn is a person's principal concern then 60 minutes of steady state cardio is going to be more effective generally.
60 minutes will burn more calories during the actual activity, but once you stop working out when doing steady state cardio then the calorie burn effectively ends. With HIIT you raise your metabolism creating an after-burn effect due to EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption), so overall in general HIIT will burn more total calories.
It's been a while since I looked into the subject but as I recall steady state does also generate EPOC but the magnitude and duration are less than that of HIIT.
The following article crunches some numbers which factors in calorie burn + EPOC for both and you will note the conclusion:
EPOC
Don't get me wrong. I think HIIT is very useful in the right context but its benefits are routinely overstated.
0 -
HIIT training [High Intensity Interval Training] is typically 20 minutes because it's short bursts of all out followed by rest; thus taxing your body more than 60 minutes of steady cardio.
This may be correct for improving various aspects of fitness (particularly VO2 Max) but if calorie burn is a person's principal concern then 60 minutes of steady state cardio is going to be more effective generally.
60 minutes will burn more calories during the actual activity, but once you stop working out when doing steady state cardio then the calorie burn effectively ends. With HIIT you raise your metabolism creating an after-burn effect due to EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption), so overall in general HIIT will burn more total calories.
err not really. Your total calorie burn will depend on your weight, intensity and duration. The calorie burn profiles of steady state v hit are different.
Hiit has the early advantage becayse you can be working harder for the short period i.e10-20 minutes of the workout. You get better VO2 max and better epoc, which lasts longer. However hit has disadvanatges you cna only do a certain amount before exhaustion and its much harder to recover from. You should look at the figures.
Steady state might not be as trendy as Hiit but you can do it for longer and its easier to recover from. It still has an epoc effect, but it trails off faster and the effect is lower.
I did a lo of research on this and came to the conlcusion that Hiit is useful for VO2 max and ok for a few times a week, but steady state is what will burn the consistent calories becayse you cna do more for longer without wiping yourself out. I do both. If you have minimal time at the gym but plenty of time to recover then hiits convenient.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions