Peak vs. Diminishing returns for splitting up aerobic exercise?
March 25, 2016 1:25 PM Subscribe
Spreading 60 minutes of daily aerobic exercise (for weight loss) into multiple sessions throughout the day (60 minutes x 1 session vs. 30x2, 20x3, 15x4, 10x6, 5x12, 2x30 [theoretically]) -- what is the most efficient "split" and at what point do the benefits diminish considerably?
1. Assume shorter sessions are proportionally more intense: 60 minute session = moderate-to-brisk walking, and 2 minute sessions = high intensity (but not all-out-sprinting) activity.
2. I'm not asking about Interval Training / HIIT -- sessions would be spread equally throughout the day, and time between sessions would be spent going about my normal everyday activities (which are not aerobic).
3. No need to consider the practicality of scheduling or staying motivated to stick with any given regimen -- I'm just wondering about physical benefits in an "all else being equal" situation.
Thanks!
1. Assume shorter sessions are proportionally more intense: 60 minute session = moderate-to-brisk walking, and 2 minute sessions = high intensity (but not all-out-sprinting) activity.
2. I'm not asking about Interval Training / HIIT -- sessions would be spread equally throughout the day, and time between sessions would be spent going about my normal everyday activities (which are not aerobic).
3. No need to consider the practicality of scheduling or staying motivated to stick with any given regimen -- I'm just wondering about physical benefits in an "all else being equal" situation.
Thanks!
All else being equal, intensity is the strongest determining factor here. Without holding myself to the specific numbers quoted, running burns a lot more calories per unit time than walking. However, if your 2-minute sessions aren't all-out sprinting, it's unclear what they bring to the table compared to sustained 10-minute also-high-intensity-but-not-sprints. So I'd pick whatever number-of-sessions-versus-length-of-sessions ratio leads to maximum intensity during those sessions.
But two things complicate this verdict. One, all else is not equal. Mathematical optimization is not the most accurate model for this problem. Follow whichever approach ends up with doing more quantity of exercise. If that's a bunch of 2-minute sessions during the workday—sometimes totaling 10 minutes, sometimes totaling 40—and a half-hour session after work, then do that. If it's focusing on other stuff during the day but setting aside a full hour in the evening, do that. People also respond differently: some people are able to do a half-hour run in the morning and then do more in the evening, other people get knocked silly by a morning run and have to take it easy that night. It depends how each kind of exercise affects your particular situation.
Two, "exercise is the world's best drug - it's just not a weight loss drug". An hour walking, lifting weights, running (or whatever) will dramatically improve your health, mood, sleep, quality of life, and functional abilities—but it won't necessarily burn a lot of fat. (An hour of fast walking might burn roughly 200 calories; 6 10-minute mile runs, which may be the mathematical optimum but sounds hard to schedule as separate sessions, might burn roughly 600.) But regardless of calorie burn, that exercise will build muscle, which makes clothes fit better, protects you from injury, and prepares you for more intense exercise, which will make you a fitter athlete in the long term! It will help you sleep better, and feel better, and able to do more things, all of which will help you maintain the dietary changes necessary to lose fat! So exercise away, but don't pin all your weight loss goals on the exercise side of the equation. Food quality and quantity, and ability to maintain habits past the 18-month mark, play a much bigger role.
posted by daveliepmann at 12:08 AM on March 26, 2016
But two things complicate this verdict. One, all else is not equal. Mathematical optimization is not the most accurate model for this problem. Follow whichever approach ends up with doing more quantity of exercise. If that's a bunch of 2-minute sessions during the workday—sometimes totaling 10 minutes, sometimes totaling 40—and a half-hour session after work, then do that. If it's focusing on other stuff during the day but setting aside a full hour in the evening, do that. People also respond differently: some people are able to do a half-hour run in the morning and then do more in the evening, other people get knocked silly by a morning run and have to take it easy that night. It depends how each kind of exercise affects your particular situation.
Two, "exercise is the world's best drug - it's just not a weight loss drug". An hour walking, lifting weights, running (or whatever) will dramatically improve your health, mood, sleep, quality of life, and functional abilities—but it won't necessarily burn a lot of fat. (An hour of fast walking might burn roughly 200 calories; 6 10-minute mile runs, which may be the mathematical optimum but sounds hard to schedule as separate sessions, might burn roughly 600.) But regardless of calorie burn, that exercise will build muscle, which makes clothes fit better, protects you from injury, and prepares you for more intense exercise, which will make you a fitter athlete in the long term! It will help you sleep better, and feel better, and able to do more things, all of which will help you maintain the dietary changes necessary to lose fat! So exercise away, but don't pin all your weight loss goals on the exercise side of the equation. Food quality and quantity, and ability to maintain habits past the 18-month mark, play a much bigger role.
posted by daveliepmann at 12:08 AM on March 26, 2016
Totally anecdotal. I'm a runner, kayaker, weight-lifter, active person.
When I want to lose weight, the only thing exercise-wise that does it is increasing aerobic workouts (running, kickboxing, Turbo Jam videos) to at least 45 consecutive minutes. I can run hard and do HIIT for up to 45 minutes and NOTHING; as soon as I do it for 45 minutes, I can safely lose 1-2 lbs weekly. Again, this is totally anecdotal but my metabolism seems to shift once I've worked out for that amount of time. Looking online, it seems that 45 minutes is actually a THING, so there ya go.
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 4:54 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
When I want to lose weight, the only thing exercise-wise that does it is increasing aerobic workouts (running, kickboxing, Turbo Jam videos) to at least 45 consecutive minutes. I can run hard and do HIIT for up to 45 minutes and NOTHING; as soon as I do it for 45 minutes, I can safely lose 1-2 lbs weekly. Again, this is totally anecdotal but my metabolism seems to shift once I've worked out for that amount of time. Looking online, it seems that 45 minutes is actually a THING, so there ya go.
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 4:54 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
After 30 consecutive minutes of aerobic exercise your body switches over to metabolizing fat because you has exhausted your glycogen stores. Breaking up your exercise into smaller units is substantially less effective.
posted by srboisvert at 5:05 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by srboisvert at 5:05 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older How can I help my wife cope with us being too old... | What are the most interestingly designed... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:57 PM on March 25, 2016