I was curious as to whether working out 30 minutes twice a day about 5 hours apart would have the same affect as working out once a day for 60 minutes. The reason i'm curious is because i'm trying to find the best method for weight loss, i am currently using a stationary cycle.No, it isn't. Your body reacts to the stress of activity differently depending on how long you sustain it. To improve/maintain cardiovascular health you need to sustain a significantly elevated heartbeat for at least 30 minutes, preferably closer to 60min. Also, after around 20-30min of activity, your body begins to preferentially burn fat rather than carbs.
If your only goal is weight loss you may be able to burn the same amount of calories by doing two 30minute intervals sessions in a day (google 'interval training' for at least a dozen good explanations as to why), but you need to sustain the activity for longer regularly to maintain health.The key for losing weight is not difficult - eat less food and exercise more - the problems surface when we really try to put that into practice! There are a lot of opportunities to fail in the big wide world don't you think?! The sole thing which definitely worked for me is wu-yi tea, it can be viewed at www.wu-yiNow.com (view the resource box underneath) they have a few free trials left, it has been reported in Reader's Digest and USA Today. I lost thrity pounds, it definitely does work!I dont know, but it sounds as though your body might get used to the 60 minutes and try to store up for it. Take the two 30 minutes, maybe even a longer break with a small snack?Yeah it's the same thing.If you are just looking for overall conditioning, then the short answer is yes, approximately. It is roughly the same assuming you put the same energy level into both. It is assumed that when you do a shorter workout, you can keep a faster pace since you don't have to save energy for later. Here's a good guage: When you do the 2 shorter workouts, as long as you spend the same amount of time being equally tired (after adding up both short sessions) as you would in the longer session, then it's approximately the same. I keep saying "approximately" since there's really no practical way to measure whether or not you are exactly as tired after one workout as you are after a different workout unless you are hooked up to lots of expensive monitoring equipment. You must judge this for yourself according to how you feel during and afterward, how quickly you recover, taking your pulse, etc. Another good indicator is if you use equipment that asks you to input your weight and then estimates how many calories you have burned. If the total from 2 short sessions is fairly close to the total from the long session, then you're probably reasonably close.
Also, I should point out that shorter, faster paced workout give a little more results in areas of strength and speed. Longer, slower workouts will give you more endurance. You get both no matter how you split your workouts, just in slightly different proportions. If you are not looking specifically for one or the other, then generally speaking, the workouts are roughly equivalent for your purposes. Absolutely. Actually, it might be better.
Why?
You might not have the time to exercise faithfully for an hour every day....but you might be more likely to have time to get in at least one of your two thirty minute routines each day.
The result? A better fitness level because you'd be doing something every single day. pretty muchYep, same thing
BUT you should throw in some high intensity interval training sessions to burn fat #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
|
15 March 2010 |
cameltoepants.com |
edit
