Is it better (from a calorie burning POV) to do one 60-minute blast of excercise, or is it just as good to do two lots of 30 minutes with a break in between?

[GetOrfMoiiLand]

I have got a cross trainer thingy. I can't do an hour on it - I would die. So last night I did a 30 minute session, sat down for half an hour, then did another 30 minutes.

Someone has said today at work that you should exercise continually as it will achieve a better result (more fat burning or whatever). Is there some truth in that, or does having a break make no difference at all?

From a calorie buring perspective, an hour solid would be marginally better, but only marginally. 2x 30 mins is still a very decent amount of exercise. It is to do with how far you are covering and how elevated your breathing is while you cover it.

Your body only goes into "fat burning mode" after 20 minutes of cardio. This means that if you take a break, you get two lots of 10 minutes of fat burning, compared to 40 minutes straight of fat burning.

Personally, I would aim to do 30 minutes. Then the next day try 35. When you are comfortable with 35, try 40 minutes, then 45 etc, this way you are building up your exercise as you are building up your own fitness levels.

Quintessentially,

With all respect, that is rubbish! Where on earth do you get this idea of a fat burning mode from? Everyone metabolises glycogen first which is stored in the liver and muscles and then moves on to fat burning. But that would normally be in ultra distance events, after several hours.

The normal idea of calorie burning is just to burn the calories consumed so you are working at a net calorie deficit, then you lose weight.

Thank you!

I think I will try to do what you have suggetsed quint - I am quite pleased to have got up rto 30 mins (I have the resistance settings quite high and when I first started I was puffed out and gave up after 5 minutes or so, I have added increments of 3 minutes a day, so I will keep on doing that).

Larry, lol, You are pretty much saying the same as me, only that I phrase it in a way which is easy to comprehend for non-exercise-fanatics. To burn fat, you should aim for a workout between 20-60 minutes. Not much point doing less than 20 if you want to burn fat, is there? Who cares if you first use calories based in your liver or your stomach, and for how long? All we need to know is, keep it up for more than 20 minutes, and the more you manage the better.

Interval training is better. So 45 seconds hammering it as fast as you can go, 5 mins at steady pace. Repeat