Steady State Cardio: 1 longer session vs multiple shorter sessions

[AD1985]

Hi all,

I'm trying to work cardio into my schedule every single day, so that it becomes an automatic part of my life (I'm not the naturally athletic type). My goal is heart health more than fat loss.

I was just wondering if studies have shown any differences in result between 1 longer session vs multiple shorter sessions?

I could easily do 2-3 15 minute bike rides per day during work breaks, and it would help oxygenate my brain as well for when I return to my desk job. I just want to get an idea of how that would compare to 1 40 minute session.

[msm00b]

I'd greatly prefer a single longer session though they'll burn similar total calories. Sustained stimulation of your cardiopulmonary system will yield better stamina and conditioning.

[MCrow]

Actually, multiple shorter sessions will burn fewer calories than one long session. It can take a while to get HR up at the beginning of a cardio session, so if you do 3 sessions that's 3 times you have work the HR up. So if you are going to split it up into shorter sessions you need to make sure you get your HR up quickly each time to get the same burn.

[msm00b]

Not exactly true. For most activities calories burned is better measured by the job done than whatever heart rate measurements were. For running/biking I'd look at total mileage. If you run 2 miles 3x in separate sessions it's going to be very similar to a single 6 mike run - basically equivalent.

Heart rate isn't a good metric to use for 'calories burned'.

[MCrow]

Not exactly true. For most activities calories burned is better measured by the job done than whatever heart rate measurements were. For running/biking I'd look at total mileage. If you run 2 miles 3x in separate sessions it's going to be very similar to a single 6 mike run - basically equivalent.

Heart rate isn't a good metric to use for 'calories burned'.

HR may not be absolute, but it's a good indicator of how hard you are working. If you are fairly fit, it can take a bit to work up to a pace and duration that raises the HR. If you are jogging your HR will be lower than if you are running at a decent pace and if you are walking your HR will be lower than jogging. So I'd say it's a good , but not perfect indicator of effort.

However, I agree the difference may be small between one long session and 3 shorter ones.

[msm00b]

What I'm trying to get at is that the lions share of caloric expenditure will come from your kegs moving your body from point A to B and not significantly impacted by the marginal difference in heart beats.

[msm00b]

And by 'kegs' I really meant 'legs'.

[MCrow]

And by 'kegs' I really meant 'legs'.

IDK, moving kegs would be a good workout as well, I think. lol.

[Electricheadd]

And by 'kegs' I really meant 'legs'.

I like the keg idea personally!! On topic, I did just read and article that discussed this topic and there is some research that shows greater fat mobilization from multiple sessions vs one long one. However, I can't help but think that's a tiny advantage considering the amount of calories burned and the slight increase in fat mobilization. It would take a years worth of cardio to add up to anything.

[AD1985]

Thanks! So in terms of heart health would they also be about the same? Heart health is my main focus

[msm00b]

Cardiovascular conditioning favors the single longer session. It's harder to get up to speed and maintain for long periods of time - ie running those 6 miles continuously vs 3 sets of 2 separately.

[JChaos]

Here is the perfect answer.

The workout you stick with.