30 minutes vs 60 minutes of exercise

It all depends on the exercise, 400 calories in 30 mins would be some serious stuff, I've never managed to hit 400 cals doing very high intensity stuff, such as crossfit (according to my heart rate monitor), however burning 400 cals in an hour is more 'realistic', such as running, swimming etc. I always live by the mantra of "if its too go to be true.. it is!"

But don't forget, that ANY workout is better then nothing at all, but it would be important to focus on getting an accurate calorie burn for whatever you choose to do, to avoid over estimating and then overeating those precious calories!

thrashscara wrote: »

But don't forget, that ANY workout is better then nothing at all

So true! I see this quote all the time and I love it, Even if youre going slow youre lapping everyone on the couch

snehad123 wrote: »

It is said that if you do sprints or HIIT exercises even if you burn the same amount of calories during workout you will burn more calories after you are done with the workout as compared to 60 min steady state cardio.

@snehad123
People may say that - but they are on the wrong track.
There's a higher percentage of EPOC from HIIT (but still small) but it would be a typically be a slightly higher percentage of a much smaller number. You can't do enough duration of true HIIT to get a big calorie burn.

PS - also remember that steady state doesn't equal low intensity.

SueInAz wrote: »

I don't think there's any additional benefit to working out longer than 30 minutes so if you can accomplish your goals in 30 minutes instead of 60 then go for it. I started running because I realized I could burn the same amount of calories in half the time of walking.

interesting I stopped running because the damage done out weighs the benefits...

OP it's up to you...

I have time for a 1hour walk in the morning and at night...
If I only had time for 30mins I would do that.