Short bursts of exercise

[Night Elf]

Can someone please explain why this works? Some time ago, a Weight Watchers leader said it was just as effective to exercise for 10 or 15 mins. three times a day as exercising for 30 mins. at one time. I'm trying to get onto a walking regimen and now that the weather has turned, I'm using my treadmill. I want to walk while watching a Britcom once a day but I last about 15 mins. and start feeling truly negative. But I can walk 15 mins. twice a day and be okay with it. I'm hoping to increase that time but I just can't explain how awful I feel when exercising! When I was walking outside, I was forced to walk 30 mins. because I would walk away from the car for 15 mins. and obviously had to walk the 15 mins. back. I didn't like it but I like the treadmill even less. It's very easy to just stop when I'm ready. So what say you?

 

I'm specifically walking for general well-being and health, not for weight loss.

[Laurie4b]

I don't know why it works, but I've read repeatedly that researchers have found that it works as well as longer stints for cardiovascular health and perhaps better for weight loss (because it jacks up the metabolism for a couple hours each time you do it.) Of course, researchers used to say you needed 30 minutes at one time to get a cardio benefit... ;)

[Χά�ων]

I have heard and have done short bursts of exercise with great luck. I felt better when I did it 2-3 times a day then when I pushed through a longer session. Unless I was reading a book while on a recumbent bike in that case longer is better.

 

The best thing ever for my health is standing instead of sitting whenever possible. Insead of sitting and watching DS at the park/pool/where ever I stand. I want a standing desk so I am not sitting while I am online.

[GailV]

I say you should stop when you're ready to stop, especially since you're doing it for general well-being and health.

 

Yes, we can find lots of research about the hows and whys of certain lengths of exercise; but I think what's important for what you're trying to accomplish is that you're trying to avoid long periods of inactivity. Did I say that in a way that makes sense? What I'm thinking is that 30 minutes of exercise and 6 hours of sitting on the couch is less healthy than 10 minutes of exercise/2 hours sitting/10 minutes/2 hours/10 minutes/2 hours. It's the same total amount of each activity (or non-activity), but your body works differently if the activities are broken into bits. It's a bit like trying to survive on umpteen catnaps vs. getting a solid multi-hour sleep -- your body works differently, even though it's the same amount of sleep.

 

Did you want some citations on that? Or were you just after a general, "hey, what do you guys think about this?"

[OH_Homeschooler]

Yes, we can find lots of research about the hows and whys of certain lengths of exercise; but I think what's important for what you're trying to accomplish is that you're trying to avoid long periods of inactivity. Did I say that in a way that makes sense? What I'm thinking is that 30 minutes of exercise and 6 hours of sitting on the couch is less healthy than 10 minutes of exercise/2 hours sitting/10 minutes/2 hours/10 minutes/2 hours. It's the same total amount of each activity (or non-activity), but your body works differently if the activities are broken into bits. It's a bit like trying to survive on umpteen catnaps vs. getting a solid multi-hour sleep -- your body works differently, even though it's the same amount of sleep.

 

 

That's interesting because Weight Watchers has been on a kick lately saying that even if you exercise for a sustained hour every day, if you sit the other 23 hours with no real activity you are still considered sedentary and the health consequences are as bad as smoking. (They have research to back this up but I don't have that citation available. They are basically using it to sell their new fitness gadget).

 

As far as the original post, my own interpretation has been that it is discouraging to think "Why bother to exercise unless I can devote a large chunk of time to it?" It is much better to find ways to fit small bursts of activity into your day than to do nothing at all. I can't speak to the physiological benefits of sustained activity versus shorter bursts, but I think the psychological benefits of changing your mentality are worthwhile. In addition, sometimes if it's just that you don't *want* to exercise but force yourself to do at least 10 minutes, you often find that once you're in the midst of doing it it's not so bad and you keep going. (It doesn't sound like that's the case for you though! Sorry!)

 

One thing that helps me exercise for longer amounts of time is to watch a show with closed captioning on (usually something very visual, like What Not to Wear) while listening to high-energy music. I need a LOT of external stimulation to keep home exercise from boring me to death.

[UrbanSue]

I have definitely read a lot about shorter exercise being as effective but that was talking about very (sometimes very, very) intense exercise. i.e. four minutes of weighted pull ups. But the goal there is also muscle building.

 

For general health and well-being I would think that shorter stints would be better for two reasons:

 

1) You will enjoy it more and feel less stressed about exercising which will keep your stress lower and get your to exercise more regularly, since it is enjoyable.

 

2) getting in the habit of exercising more will get you to exercise more the whole rest of the day. Exercise will be less compartmentalized.

 

It is true that an hour of aerobics plus 23 hours of sitting will not contribute to health. I think, optimally, you want to stand for at least half your day. This isn't too hard if you are home during the day and keep on top of housework and make three meals. You might look into a pedometer. They are very inexpensive (I got one for $4) and can track your steps. Shooting for 10,000 steps a day (5 miles of walking, on average) will get you to your goals. I have found that I don't get to 10K unless I go for a walk. So you'd still be looking to get out and/or get on the treadmill while watching TV but it would make your whole day one long stretch of incremental exercise.

[Night Elf]

Did you want some citations on that? Or were you just after a general, "hey, what do you guys think about this?"

 

Just a general discussion. I'm glad to hear other people have heard it too. It would really suit me better because I feel that I can walk for 15 min. and I wouldn't feel badly about doing it.

[LG Gone Wild]

Can someone please explain why this works? Some time ago, a Weight Watchers leader said it was just as effective to exercise for 10 or 15 mins. three times a day as exercising for 30 mins. at one time. I'm trying to get onto a walking regimen and now that the weather has turned, I'm using my treadmill. I want to walk while watching a Britcom once a day but I last about 15 mins. and start feeling truly negative. But I can walk 15 mins. twice a day and be okay with it. I'm hoping to increase that time but I just can't explain how awful I feel when exercising! When I was walking outside, I was forced to walk 30 mins. because I would walk away from the car for 15 mins. and obviously had to walk the 15 mins. back. I didn't like it but I like the treadmill even less. It's very easy to just stop when I'm ready. So what say you?

 

I'm specifically walking for general well-being and health, not for weight loss.

 

Shorts bursts of exercise if they are intense do work.

 

I mean, there are all different ways of getting fit. Short bursts, long hauls, circuit training, cross training - it all depends on what you want. Stick with what you find tolerable, 15 minutes twice a day for your sense of well-being is the right course for *you*.

[justLisa]

I do a lot of HIT training. Not because I love it but because I am generally lazy and don't like to spend a lot of time sweating. I'm sort of in the biggest bang for your buck. I do heavy squats/lunges, power lifts and presses. It is very quick. And I can eat more.