Metabolism Question

[vanzandt]

I have a question.
Now I of course realize an exact answer here is impossible, I mean it obviously would require an in depth study that involved a myriad of controlled variables like the individual, the specific cardio machine, etc etc... but I'll frame it real generic.

Which one of these, A or B, would result in a higher/longer metabolic burn rate for the day, and when done over a period of months, result in a larger reduction of excess body weight, all else being equal like diet.

A) 30 minutes on the exercise machine where you are busting your ass off and on for the majority of the session and you can't wait till its over. A level where reading a magazine is pretty much out of the question and you actually feel the work/pain in your muscles

or

B) Say 50 minutes or more on the same machine but at a much less painful level where you still get your heart-rate up to 120ish and keep it there, but its more enjoyable and you can read or just listen to music or whatever.

The exact number of minutes in my example are for simplicity purposes only, just to convey the principles involved behind what I'm basically asking. It could be 7 minutes of ball busting vs.15 minutes of tolerable yet brisk exertion.

And again I know an exercise physiologist could probably dedicate several years and 100 graphs to figure out the optimum mix, the ratios of time duration to physical difficulty, and even that would of course depend on the individual and what they felt like at the time, but just generally...

Personally I prefer the longer session at an easier pace than the shorter session in pain. But is the shorter session more effective? As it stands, I do either/or depending on the day. But am I wasting my time on the easy days even though I go longer?

 

[CaptainObvious]

Neither one will give you the body decomposition you're looking for. You'll end up skinny fat and weak. Do 45 minutes of weight training, 3-4 times a week, and walk at a slow but steady pace for 30 minutes afterwards. Maintain a reasonable diet. The weight will not come off fast, but it will come off and stay off as time goes on. You wanna get skinny or you wanna get fit?

 

[vanzandt]

Neither one will give you the body decomposition you're looking for. You'll end up skinny fat and weak. Do 45 minutes of weight training, 3-4 times a week, and walk at a slow but steady pace for 30 minutes afterwards. Maintain a reasonable diet. The weight will not come off fast, but it will come off and stay off as time goes on. You wanna get skinny or you wanna get fit?

No I understand, you have to do some weights. But I still have the question regarding the metabolic rate resulting from either a short difficult cardio or a longer easier cardio. Take me out of the question. Say it was an athletic 22yo offensive lineman that was strong as all get out, but wasn't cut. He wants to get cut. And I mean it could be a combination of aerobic stuff. 20 minutes on the treadmill set at its highest or 30 minutes using an easier incline? Strictly as the results apply to the body's metabolic rate and duration after the workout.

 

[destriero]

They are probably equivalent. You'll need to run both exercises and see the output. The 140bpm is recommended for CV-health, not for weight loss. It's analogous to asking will I burn more calories hiking down hill for an hour, or uphill for thirty minutes?

Calorie meters aren't a panacea, but accurate enough for relative-value/efficiency.

 

[vanzandt]

It's analogous to asking will I burn more calories hiking down hill for an hour, or uphill for thirty minutes?

Yeah that's a perfect analogy.

 

[destriero]

Yeah that's a perfect analogy.

Resistance training burns something like 5x more cals than vigorous cardio... but you cannot sustain the pace with weightlifting. It's the argument for interval training with say, 40% of your 1RM + cardio.

I do some of the hybrid stuff (thrusters) 3x/week as it's a combo of a front squat and the assisted push press/mil press. Imagine doing thirty minutes of those?

 

[eurusdzn]

If a bear was chasing your ass you might put out an effort that shocks your system.
Short of this why not enjoy the magazine.

 

[VixTraderdf]

I have a question.
Now I of course realize an exact answer here is impossible, I mean it obviously would require an in depth study that involved a myriad of controlled variables like the individual, the specific cardio machine, etc etc... but I'll frame it real generic.

Which one of these, A or B, would result in a higher/longer metabolic burn rate for the day, and when done over a period of months, result in a larger reduction of excess body weight, all else being equal like diet.

A) 30 minutes on the exercise machine where you are busting your ass off and on for the majority of the session and you can't wait till its over. A level where reading a magazine is pretty much out of the question and you actually feel the work/pain in your muscles

or

B) Say 50 minutes or more on the same machine but at a much less painful level where you still get your heart-rate up to 120ish and keep it there, but its more enjoyable and you can read or just listen to music or whatever.

The exact number of minutes in my example are for simplicity purposes only, just to convey the principles involved behind what I'm basically asking. It could be 7 minutes of ball busting vs.15 minutes of tolerable yet brisk exertion.

And again I know an exercise physiologist could probably dedicate several years and 100 graphs to figure out the optimum mix, the ratios of time duration to physical difficulty, and even that would of course depend on the individual and what they felt like at the time, but just generally...

Personally I prefer the longer session at an easier pace than the shorter session in pain. But is the shorter session more effective? As it stands, I do either/or depending on the day. But am I wasting my time on the easy days even though I go longer?

I read a study once, I wish i could find it because its relevant here, but the gist was about how olympic runners trained, some did high intensity, some did longer slower runs like you. The conclusion was the best training incorporated all types of training to constantly shock your body and work different systems.

When I was boxing, I did a mix of long runs where I went as long as I could at a moderate pace, and burst sessions where I would push myself to the max in short intervals.
So in your case, I would suggest a mix of both.


edit: read this...https://www.outsideonline.com/24008...faster-or-run-longer?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

[Frederick Foresight]

B) Say 50 minutes or more on the same machine but at a much less painful level where you still get your heart-rate up to 120ish and keep it there, but its more enjoyable and you can read or just listen to music or whatever.

I've seen people reading while doing cardio. None of them appeared to be an exemplar of physical fitness.

 

[vanzandt]

I've seen people reading while doing cardio. None of them appeared to be an exemplar of physical fitness.

Yeah well, I'm the exception. Anyway, I was hoping you'd ring in here. We can go at it about stupid stuff down politics... but you certainly have my utmost respect in the physical fitness dept. You and Baron. You more-so because you're an OG. Not many cats your age look that good. The results speak for themselves.

I think what Dest said and the other fellow, is the key. Its a combination of things. And the thing about using the bike when its on a very high level... in a way that is like resistance training, and cardio all at once. It does both really. You are working one of your largest muscle groups and if it stings.... like Dest said, you're gonna get that 4X the calorie burn that comes with resistance training.

The calorie meters on all that equipment, I suppose they are pretty close... but I think the biggest benefit is a good workout in the morning keeps your metabolism high all day so in essence you probably burn more than the various machines log you as burning. Over the rest of the day that is.