can 2 sessions of cardio be more effective than 1?

[marcu_s]

1 hour straight or 30 min times two whit a few hours apart.

which choice can be the most effective or wont there be any difference?

im asking this beacause i just love to be at my gym, simple as that, and love to be there.

what do u guys think?

 

[LoneTree]

For endurance, continuous 1 hour would be better.
Calories burning wise, very little difference between the two.
Cardiovascular benefits: If you reach 80% of maximum achievable heart rate and stay there for a few minutes, then half an hour at a time is fine.

 

[Jocques Straap]

VO2 is parallel with HR.

If your HR is higher on average for the 2 sessions vs. the 1 session, then you will burn more cals during the 2 sessions.

 

[musketeer]

Ronnie Coleman did 2 hours of cardio per day, in two one-hour sessions (first thing in the morning and evening) preparing for his O's.

Calories burning wise, very little difference between the two.

Actually 2 x 30 mins should result in a noticeable increase in calorific expenditure vs 1 hour straight. Elevated heart-rates and hormones following each session will result in more calories burnt throughout the day after the workouts. ALSO during each workout, because the exercise duration is reduced to half, intensity can reasonably be increased and maintained for the duration, resulting in more calories burned in the same time, and more calories burnt between workouts.

 

[timtim]

even doing low intensity cardio, whenever i do doubles i get burnt out. even on cycle, it has effected my training a significant amount.

 

[Endo MD]

Musketeer is correct. It has been scientifically proven that separate cardio workouts will burn more OVERALL calories than the same time done all at once. This is due to the body remaining at an elevated metabolism state for a period after the cardio is completed.

 

[SaiBoT]

+1 to musketeer and endo md.