Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

 
Message Boards
FORUM:   Fitness and Exercise
TOPIC:  

Intense/Infrequent vs Less Intense/Consistent



Click here to read our frequently asked Fitness and Exercise questions.

 
 
Search the
Message Boards:
Search
      Share
Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

Author: Message: Sort First Post on Top


BOB240
SparkPoints: (5,862)
Fitness Minutes: (1,285)
Posts: 350
1/6/13 12:32 P

Actually there is a lot of evidence that very short , intense exercise sessions are far more effective. See this BBC video for a summary of the research discussed in layman's terms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7-h_w7bJ
rU&list=PL44A47352214E67B6

or here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01cywtq

There is good evidence that simply high intenstity weight training for no more than two hours a week is enough to maintain and even improve both cardio and strength.

HIIT ( lasting no more than ten minutes a week) is the next to add is the next to add in terms of time efficiency.


Protracted medium intensity cardio as your husband is doing is third on the list.

Most research now indicates that lengthy, low intensity cardio sessions are pretty pointless for most people... it is easier just to eat less as that type of exercise doesn't push either your cardio vascular system, your lactate threshold and certainty not your strength..

Edited by: BOB240 at: 1/6/2013 (12:39)


DRAGONCHILDE
SparkPoints: (56,157)
Fitness Minutes: (14,204)
Posts: 9,569
1/6/13 10:32 A

You do get basically the same benefits by breaking up your workout or doing more at a lower intensity. What matters isn't as much the intensity as the time versus intensity. Burning 500 calories in 45 minutes is basically the same as burning 500 calories in two hours.

The problem in this case isn't the actual time spent or his intensity... it's his ability to stick with it! Neither is helpful if he isn't doing it! Frankly, I find treadmill running insufferably boring; if that's all I had to do, I wouldn't do it, either!

Here's an article that can help break up the monotony:

www.sparkpeople.com/resource/fitness_artic
les.asp?id=266


Note that running whole-hog the entire time is a bit dangerous; you need to warm up and cool down properly or you're putting unnecessary strain on your body. If he can't workout for a week, he's definitely not doing it right!

Once a week is just not enough for really giving you any super great benefits. It's better than nothing, but science has shown that exercise for at least 30 minutes, 3 times per week provides GREAT heart-healthy benefits.



ZORBS13
SparkPoints: (93,692)
Fitness Minutes: (95,007)
Posts: 12,896
1/6/13 10:25 A

I'm not sure of any studies, but anecdotal evidence shows that consistency is key. Is there any other real life example you could use?

My piano students (kids) all understand that practicing 5 minutes daily is better for helping retention of lesson material than 1 hour once a week.



SURSHIRE
Posts: 7
1/6/13 10:07 A

I need some help. Hubs has a tough work schedule and knows he needs to exercise more but just doesn't feel like he has the time. His idea of a treadmill workout is 45 minutes, running whole hog the entire time. Burns him out and then he doesn't get on it again for another week or two. I tried to explain to him that even if he just got on the thing and walked for 15 minutes everyday, that would be better than doing one intense workout once a week or so. But he disagrees. Is there some science or study behind the idea of doing less intense workout consistently being better than less frequently doing a butt kicking workout?



 
Page: 1 of (1)  
Search  



Share


 
Diet Resources: australian licorice | licorice panda | licorice flavor