Splitting up Cardio?

[tonemeup]

Hi There,

Hope everyone is well. Well as you know I have drastically reduced my cardio and upped my protein intake. I plan on doing 3 days of cardio for 35 minutes. I would still like to do 2 days of cardio no shorter than 60 minutes. My question is, if I break up the cardio session and do 30 min at lunch and 30 min at say 8:00pm, will that still be as beneficial as doing 60 mins. straight? I have read that splitting up cardio sessions is still beneficial but my husband says it takes 15 minutes to get into the fat burning zone and if I split up my cardio to two 30 minute sessions that I really will only be working in my "zone" for 30 minutes. Also, at what intesity should I work out. I am usally between 75-85% by using the 220-your age formula. Thanks again for all your help!!!

 

[SteelWeaver]

See the thread I'm about to bump for you, called "when 30 + 30 does not = 60"

Oh, and hey, I was just kidding on the other thread - that 's all in my wildest dreams - I've worked jolly hard for the muscle I've gained - just didn't feel like reliving the pain ...

 

[tonemeup]

You jerk!!!! Just kidding!! I thought you were serious!!!! Thanks for the chuckle though! And thanks for the thread!! I was going to do a search but I didn't even know how to phrase it. Thanks again!!!!

 

[tonemeup]

Thanks for the reply but......


Now I'm confused. Should I do less or more cardio? I was doing 60 minutes atleast 5 days a week and it was getting me no where! Now that I have changed my diet and started lifting again I was planning on doing 35 minutes 3 days a week and 60 min 2 days a week. I really, really need this BF to go down. I am at 33%(crappy clicker calipers) and 141 pounds, I'm 5'4! Please someone help me! I am really in a fog now.

 

[tonemeup]

BUMP!!!

 

[JJFigure]

It depends (gotta love that answer!).

A big part of the equation is your diet; I've chosen to use a cyclical very low carb diet for cutting and this lets me get away with doing less cardio, since this type of diet teaches your body to rely on fat for energy, so you are more likely to be burning fat from the start of the cardio session, so you can do less. I also am pretty lean and have 11 years of muscle development under my belt; the higher your LBM, the easier it is to cut without turning into a cardio queen, IMO (not that it's ever EASY, just easier).

The downside of 60 minute cardio sessions is you will burn out, hate doing cardio, and potentially quit working out. Trust me, I know. I didn't do cardio for a couple years (excluding snowboarding) because I had been doing so much of it I absolutely HATED it - DREADED that part of my workout (LOVE lifting though!!). If it weren't for HIIT (and competing), I probably still wouldn't be doing cardio. You have to find a happy medium - something YOU can live with. If you're going to dread every minute of your cardio sessions, does it really matter if you're doing 30 mintues or 60 minutes?

You can weigh the pros and cons of both arguments (HIIT vs. long duration steady state), but in the long run, just choose the approach that works best for your lifestyle. The key is finding an approach you can stick out for the long haul.

 

[tonemeup]

HEy JJ,

Thanks! Yes you are right. I do need to find what works for me. The first 3 weeks will have to be experimental until I find the right mix. Thanks again.

 

[Judah Bauer]

there may be nutrient partioning and insulin sensitivity benefits to splitting up cardio. That stuff about the fat burning zone is crap calories burned are calories burned.

 

[Nonerz]

I've seen a lot of people reccomend HIIT for BF reduction. There is a step mill at my gym (I've nicknamed it "The Monster") and I'll do 25 minutes of HIIT on that puppy...man it kicks my ass! I do a lot of Cardio Kickboxing and The Monster is the only thing that will make my face turn red and give me that "runners high" afterwards.

 

[bignate73]

there may be nutrient partioning and insulin sensitivity benefits to splitting up cardio. That stuff about the fat burning zone is crap calories burned are calories burned.

half right...

calories burned do contribute to overall calorie expenditure, which combined with diet will yield weight loss.

but... the percentage of glucose, protein and fats used at certain exertion levels, is not crap. example, as THR (target heart rate) increases, the subsequent increase of proteins and glucose as preferred energy source increases as well. fat oxidation cannot keep up with the required energy expenditure. someone looking to burn cals, is set. someone looking to maintain muscle...might not be. the difference between straight cardio and HIIT would be the amount of post exercise oxygen consumption (epoc or afterburn) which sets the body up to burn calories after the workout is completed.

 

[tjs]

I don't think it has to be one or the other...both have benefits, especially if you are working up to a goal such as a long-distance race. Doing two 30 minute sessions will allow you to push more intensely each time and burn more calories both during and after the workout. However, one 60 minute session allows you to challenge yourself cardiovascularly and helps your lung efficiency. Additionally, doing both types of workouts each week keeps your body constantly challenged. I would try doing one of each per week, plus the other 35 minute workouts you described.

 

[JJFigure]

"However, one 60 minute session allows you to challenge yourself cardiovascularly and helps your lung efficiency."

That's very true; unfortunately, you may also die of boredom.

Give me an outdoor sprint any day of the week!! Just psyching myself up for today's sprint workout.

 

[Judah Bauer]

half right...

calories burned do contribute to overall calorie expenditure, which combined with diet will yield weight loss.

but... the percentage of glucose, protein and fats used at certain exertion levels, is not crap. example, as THR (target heart rate) increases, the subsequent increase of proteins and glucose as preferred energy source increases as well. fat oxidation cannot keep up with the required energy expenditure. someone looking to burn cals, is set. someone looking to maintain muscle...might not be. the difference between straight cardio and HIIT would be the amount of post exercise oxygen consumption (epoc or afterburn) which sets the body up to burn calories after the workout is completed.

I haven't seen any proof that substrates burned during cardio (fat vs. carbs) actually has much to do w/ actually bodyfat lost.

I have seen at least one study where pre workout whey nullifies catabolism...so I'm gonna theorize that if you do two cardio session, and the meals before those two sessions are whey...you could pretty much lower the risk of catabolism substantially, while still maintaining the benefits.

I just think there are advantages....say you do 20 mins cardio in the AM (whatever form)...you'll burn some fat, raise BMR, raise insulin sensitivity, and 20 mins protolysis really isn't a prob. Then you train in the after noon and you get all the same benefits. Then maybe 20 mins evening cardio, the same benefits again.

As long as your not overdoing it on intensity, or creating too much of a deficit, and getting enough protein....I'd say three bumps in insulin sensitivity/BMR/fat burning is probably superior to two.