Quick workout question!

urahonky

Hey guys, since Black Friday I've been working out in the gym. My friend and I got into a slight quibble about which is better, and I was wondering if you guys could tell me.

Basically there are two elliptical machines in the room. One is definitely harder to use than the other (that is, it gets you sweating faster and (according to the number on the machine, which should be taken lightly I'm sure) burns more calories. Now if I do 15 minutes on the harder one I burn more calories/sweat more/have a harder time than if I do the easier one for 30 minutes straight.

I try to stay at the gym for 1 hour, so if I do the harder elliptical for 15 minutes, I generally work weights and ride the bike for the final 45 minutes.

So I ask you, which one is better to lose weight with? The easier one for longer, or the harder one for shorter?

EggyToast

Neither; it's about total time. If you walk for an hour but run for 15 minutes, let's say, you'll burn the same number of calories, so neither is better for losing weight. You're doing equivalent things.

So if you work for an hour doing a cumulatively identical amount of cardiovascular work, then you should lose the same amount of weight. Might gain more muscle with the more intense workout, which would throw a wrench into the calculations, but that's the fun part of dealing with bodies and not physics problems.

The better way to lose weight is to go on the harder one for the same amount of time as you'd be on the easier one.

urahonky

EggyToast wrote: »

Neither; it's about total time. If you walk for an hour but run for 15 minutes, let's say, you'll burn the same number of calories, so neither is better for losing weight. You're doing equivalent things.

So if you work for an hour doing a cumulatively identical amount of cardiovascular work, then you should lose the same amount of weight. Might gain more muscle with the more intense workout, which would throw a wrench into the calculations, but that's the fun part of dealing with bodies and not physics problems.

The better way to lose weight is to go on the harder one for the same amount of time as you'd be on the easier one.

So even though my heart rate is going for a longer period of time on the easier one, they are still the same in the end (well "same")?

I really want to try the HIIT on the harder one, but right now I'm trying to get a little more in shape before I try it out.

geckahn

Well doing HIIT for a shorter period of time is definitely better. There are benefits beyond immediate calorie use.

EggyToast

urahonky wrote: »

So even though my heart rate is going for a longer period of time on the easier one, they are still the same in the end (well "same")?

I really want to try the HIIT on the harder one, but right now I'm trying to get a little more in shape before I try it out.

Yeah, or at least similar. It's not entirely clear because while the short, high-impact work will burn through calories fast and get your muscles working harder (and your heart rate up), your body is going to use somewhat different processes for converting energy compared to a longer but easier workout. If you can run leisurely for an hour or sprint for only 3 minutes repeating every 10 minutes, you're going to get a better cardiovascular workout doing the longer workout. But you won't build muscle as well so your body may remain inefficient at burning calories compared to someone who runs faster than you.

It's the same reason why runners don't constantly lose weight despite not necessarily eating more. They build muscle and their cardiovascular health improves to the new baseline, so that, as far as calories are concerned, their body burns the same "now" running a 10k in 40 minutes as their "old" body did running a 10k in 50 minutes.

The same will happen to you if you're trying to lose weight, and you should actually mix it up -- do a high intensity workout for 15 minutes and then do weights, and then the next day do a lower-intensity workout for the entire hour.

But honestly, you'd need to track the approximate calories for each activity to do a real comparison. The only thing you can really compare is how hard the workout is and how much of your total body is being used (note that running uses more of your body compared to swimming due to gravity). So lifting weights for 30 minutes doesn't really burn many calories.

ReindeerGames

You were right one track until that last sentence, but only because you're not giving the last effects of resistance training as much credit as they are due.

The general idea of exercise is that no matter what you're choosing to do, the combination of time and intensity will determine the total energy you use (and as calories are in fact units of energy, this also equals calories burned.) Therefore a short sprint is in some ways equivalent to a long run. The difference is the type of output and what "twitch" muscles are being used.

The benefit in short, explosive workloads is they have a greater impact and muscle breakdown, which translates to muscle building. Muscle building requires the body to work long after the actual action of the workout is complete, therefore, weight lifting in fact causes your body to continue burning calories at a higher rate even while it is "at rest."

The best workouts for ANY sport or goal are mixes of fast and slow, low to high intensity motions. Personally I recommend splitting it up by week, week one do medium intensity runs with 10-12 rep weight lifts. Rest a moderate period in between sets; no more than a minute or two. Next week, work a long, slow pace run or stair climb, then lift your heavier weights in 4-8 rep sets. Take shorter rests. On the third week, sprint and lift low weights in high rep (12-15) sets. Rest NO more than 90 seconds between sets. Fourth week you can rest or do low impact runs and bike rides. Then restart.

There is no gospel to fitness, but variety should be dogma. Muscle imbalances (i.e. only bench pressing or only StairMastering) cause more injury than anything, and if the body falls into a deep rhythm, workouts become less and less efficient. Plus, if your mind gets bored, good luck maintaining your habit.

Try your own combinations and remember to rest.

urahonky

That's very informative, thanks Eggy!

Thanatos

The science on this isn't totally clear.

What Eggy says is technically right, in that you'll burn the same number of calories doing the same work, regardless of the period of time you do it over; however, there is some reasonably strong evidence that more intense workouts that can spike your heart rate higher than a less-intense workout over a longer period have more positive effects on your metabolism.

I'd strongly recommend HIIT, regardless of whether you think you're in shape for it or not; as long as you're pushing yourself hard during the "highs," it doesn't matter what you're actually doing.

schuss

It really depends on your long-term goals. I'd say go for whatever will get you to the gym day in and day out, as that plus eating less calories than you're using will equal weight loss.

EggyToast

Ultimately it is healthier to do more intense workouts rather than do easy things for longer, if your body allows it. It's better to work on running, for example, even if you can only jog slowly for 2 miles with walk breaks every 5 minutes (for example) compared to walking for an "equivalent" amount of time. For someone in shape, running burns like twice the amount of calories compared to "exercise walking," but that doesn't mean that walking twice as long will get you skinny. What Reindeer and Than point out is similar to what I was saying about your muscles building up and getting used to an activity. If your body can do it easily, then that means your body is efficient at the task — and thus you're not burning as many calories as you could be doing a more intense workout.

Just think of what Greg LeMond says about cycling: "It never gets easier, you just go faster." The more you push yourself the more results you'll see.