Long period versus short periods of exercise

Chezzie84 · January 2016

Is short periods of exercise just as affective as long periods?

For example:
If I do 3 x 10 minutes on the cross trainer each with a small rest in between instead of 1 x 30 minutes, is it just as beneficial?

callsitlikeiseeit · January 2016

i think for heart rate and weight loss reasons, the longer period would be better. but if its just the activity you are wanting, any you get is good.

schibsted750 · January 2016

It depends. If the rests mean that you're able to reach higher levels of intensity during the shorter sessions than you would in a long one, they might actually be more beneficial for cardiovascular fitness. Calorically, there's little to no difference.

Continuous exercise can lead to muscle catabolism, which is one of the rationales for HIIT. Not sure if 30 minutes is long enough that you'd need to worry about that, though. I've read in more than one place that 30-40 minutes is where the hormonal response to exercise, which raises cortisol, begins to damage your body. So I do a 35 minute session of cardio in the morning, and another 35 minute session in the evening. If I eat well during the intermission, I feel more or less fully recovered in time for the second session.

davert123 · January 2016

I think the question isn't really a good one. When you say beneficial I would argue you need to add what the benefit you are trying to get is :-) If you are doing no exercise at the moment then anything is good. Fill your boots with as much as you can get in any form you can. Once you get going (and if you are already) a lot will come down on intensity and what you call long periods and what you are really trying to do. Again short is better than nothing but there are definite benefits if you can go at a low intensity for a longer period of time than loads of short low intensity sessions in the way your body processes fat and distribute oxygen. You can also do high intensity exercise for short periods of time. This has distinct advantages in how you process oxygen . A great book on this (I am sure there are many but its the one I read) is called "Total Heart rate Training" by Joe Friel. It only costs a few dollars on kindle or Amazon and explains how training at different heartrates benefits the body. It is really well worth reading so you work out what how best you use your time training :-) All the best.

rosebarnalice · January 2016

There's some evidence that it's more beneficial. Search for "HIIT" (high intensity interval training) or "Tabata training" for some good articles.

davert123 · January 2016

schibsted750 wrote: »

It depends. If the rests mean that you're able to reach higher levels of intensity during the shorter sessions than you would in a long one, they might actually be more beneficial for cardiovascular fitness. Calorically, there's little to no difference.

Continuous exercise can lead to muscle catabolism, which is one of the rationales for HIIT. Not sure if 30 minutes is long enough that you'd need to worry about that, though. I've read in more than one place that 30-40 minutes is where the hormonal response to exercise, which raises cortisol, begins to damage your body. So I do a 35 minute session of cardio in the morning, and another 35 minute session in the evening. If I eat well during the intermission, I feel more or less fully recovered in time for the second session.

A lot depends on your diet as well when it comes to expertise. When I was going full belt training last year I was doing weekly 3-4 hr bike rides and 1-2 hr run sessions and my muscles were bulking. HIIT sessions are good but Long Slow Duration sessions are also good, it depends upon personal goals and what you enjoy.

Chezzie84 · January 2016

Thanks all for your answers.

I have decided to start to work on my fitness now my eating is under control.
I can do 10 minutes at a time before having to take a short break.
The benefits I am looking for is to improve fitness.
I suppose the short intervals are the best I can do for now and longer will come in time.

callsitlikeiseeit · January 2016

Chezzie84 wrote: »

Thanks all for your answers.

I have decided to start to work on my fitness now my eating is under control.
I can do 10 minutes at a time before having to take a short break.
The benefits I am looking for is to improve fitness.
I suppose the short intervals are the best I can do for now and longer will come in time.

last year when i began working out, 10 minutes was literally all i COULD do. Now, I can do an hour (or probably more, i just dont lol) of cardio with comparative ease. The more you do it, the more your overall fitness will improve, and the longer you will be able to go. As that gets easier, you can make the workout more difficult (higher incline, level, resistance, etc). But to start, just get moving and work on it slowly. even adding a minute or two every week will get easier and give a lot of satisfaction

MeanderingMammal · January 2016

Chezzie84 wrote: »

Thanks all for your answers.

I have decided to start to work on my fitness now my eating is under control.
I can do 10 minutes at a time before having to take a short break.
The benefits I am looking for is to improve fitness.
I suppose the short intervals are the best I can do for now and longer will come in time.

So I think you've answered your own question. If your limit is 10 minutes and you can't do 30 minutes then you're getting more benefit. Your other option is to reduce your intensity so that you can do the full 30 minutes. Either way is a method to give you a basis for improvement, either increasing your time per interval or your intensity.

As upthread, there are benefits in going for longer, rather than doing shorter periods.

Ignore anyone talking about HIIT, given where you are it's completely useless to you and potentially increases your injury risk.

Yi5hedr3 · January 2016

Actually it is better!

davert123 · January 2016

Chezzie84 wrote: »

Thanks all for your answers.

I have decided to start to work on my fitness now my eating is under control.
I can do 10 minutes at a time before having to take a short break.
The benefits I am looking for is to improve fitness.
I suppose the short intervals are the best I can do for now and longer will come in time.

if you can do 10 minutes at a time that's great. If you do it regularly you will really feel the benefits in a short while. When I started I was totally unfit. I started walking in my lunch times (half hour made my legs ache) and after a month I started to run for 10 or 20 seconds and walk for 5 minutes to recover lol. It soon builds up. All the best, just keep doing it - this is the most important thing. There are plenty of people who decide to change their lives in Jan and pack in in before Feb. Doing it little and often like you are planning sounds a great way to do stuff that will help but not too much to burn you out. Keep coming back here and try and get people on your friends list. Come and comment a little every day - try and make it part of your life. The important thing I found is that I needed to change me more than my diet. MFP and some of the people on it allowed me and showed me how to do it. Really good luck, hope 2016 is great for you.

tomatoey · January 2016

schibsted750 wrote: »

It depends. If the rests mean that you're able to reach higher levels of intensity during the shorter sessions than you would in a long one, they might actually be more beneficial for cardiovascular fitness. Calorically, there's little to no difference.

Continuous exercise can lead to muscle catabolism, which is one of the rationales for HIIT. Not sure if 30 minutes is long enough that you'd need to worry about that, though. I've read in more than one place that 30-40 minutes is where the hormonal response to exercise, which raises cortisol, begins to damage your body. So I do a 35 minute session of cardio in the morning, and another 35 minute session in the evening. If I eat well during the intermission, I feel more or less fully recovered in time for the second session.

I've seen this before, but - are the effects large enough to make a difference to most people? Or to people doing gentler exercise? (I'm shooting for one-hour walks, lately - fast enough that I'm passing everyone who's not running, but not so fast I'm breathing overly hard; could have a conversation easily, etc. Surely that wouldn't be too terrible in terms of cortisol & muscle catabolism for an average person?)

MeanderingMammal · January 2016

schibsted750 wrote: »

It depends. If the rests mean that you're able to reach higher levels of intensity during the shorter sessions than you would in a long one, they might actually be more beneficial for cardiovascular fitness.

Different types of session have different effects, although at the originators current position it's more about developing the ability to get to a continuous 30 minutes now.

Long period, steady state improve endurance and stamina.
Intervals, of the type described, are a very basis way to get towards long period, steady state.
Lactate threshold sessions improve the ability to work at higher intensities
High intensity intervals can improve oxygen uptake in the blood, but given their nature have very limited effects on CV endurance.

Continuous exercise can lead to muscle catabolism, which is one of the rationales for HIIT.

uhuh, go on...

Whilst the originator is aiming to lose weight, so is naturally in deficit as a result of that, as long as one refuels and compensates for the energy consumed in training this is not going to be an issue at the levels she's talking about.

Not sure if 30 minutes is long enough that you'd need to worry about that, though. I've read in more than one place that 30-40 minutes is where the hormonal response to exercise, which raises cortisol, begins to damage your body.

Were they credible places, or bodybuilding blogs?

If you're doing more than a couple of hours per session, per day, and you're not refueling in between, then there is a risk. This is not an issue for the originator.

[/quote]So I do a 35 minute session of cardio in the morning, and another 35 minute session in the evening. If I eat well during the intermission, I feel more or less fully recovered in time for the second session.[/quote]

I don't do anything of less than about an hour. Up to 90 minutes I'm comfortable fasted, more than that I'll generally fuel beforehand and perhaps take some nutrition when I'm out.

SingingSingleTracker · January 2016

Chezzie84 wrote: »

Is short periods of exercise just as affective as long periods?

For example:
If I do 3 x 10 minutes on the cross trainer each with a small rest in between instead of 1 x 30 minutes, is it just as beneficial?

In terms of calorie burn - you burn the calories whether you do them in three 10 minute segments, or one 30 minute segment.

In terms of the training effect and trying to stress your system enough to see gains in your conditioning, stamina and endurance - that's a different subject that could show benefits in both the shorter segments if they were intervals, as well as the one duration if it is working on a particular HR/Power Level Zone that one needs to develop.

Three intense 10 minute segments with lower intensity (or rest) between is a typical workout. Your rest between bouts could still be on whatever machine you are using, just slow down to the point that your HR recovers back down to a recovery or Zone 1 bpm rate. Then after a period of this slower rest (say 3-5 minutes), go hard again for your next 10 minute segment.

Long period versus short periods of exercise

Replies

Categories