Hey everyone,

I've been wondering how long an ideal cardio session should be. Usually my cardio sessions last for 45 minutes, but towards the end of my workout today, some really good music came on (I tune into the gym music), and I ended up doing an extra 4 minutes, burning an extra 50 calories by doing so. I feel confused though - a lot of texts and experts say that doing cardio for more than 40 minutes is sub-optimal. But I'm thinking I'm burning extra calories, so surely that's a good thing?

I'm also thinking of extending my cardio workouts to 60 minutes. Is this a good idea? (I would have asked the trainers at my gym but they just seem interested in getting new membership and getting people to pay for personal training, which I can't afford - £130 a month!)

I alternate between cardio and weight training. I'm hoping to increase my workouts to 5 to 6 times a week from my current 3 times. I guess I just want to see results. I can 'feel' my body changing but the weight isn't coming off like I want it to. Is this a good idea?

So many questions, but I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.

" Sub-optimal " - in what way exactly ?

For example, what is the purpose of your cardio - general fitness, fat loss, endurance ?

Again ' results ' in what area - is it weight loss ?

Hi Wrangell,

Thanks for the response. By sub-optimal I mean that a 60 minute cardio session is equal to a 40 minute cardio session and you are only overtraining your body, which isn't good in the long run, or so they say..

The point of what I'm doing is weight loss and muscle tone, which is why I'm combining cardio with weight training. I've been doing it for around a month now..

I've been doing very intense interval cardio workouts, almost all of them lasting an hour, for four months, combined with whole body weight training twice a week. I would hardly call my results sub-optimal. I'm in better shape than I've been in 40 years, and I'm hardly losing any lean body mass at all.

Well there are documented problems with people who do cardio for a long time in one sitting and end up burning lean muscle instead of fat. Being within 40-60 minutes, you should be fine, assuming your nutrition is fine as well.

Texts and experts say alot of things, which may work for the majority, but what happens when you're the minority? My recommendation is to go ahead and increase your workout, to the point where you can still handle it (dont kill yourself). Document things like weight, measurements, etc and see if you lose anymore weight/inches with the new exercise plan. Personally, I like inches more because it's the clear sign of fat loss whereas weight loss could mean muscle, water, fat)

I increased my workout (almost doubled) and still lost the same 2 pounds per week as with the shorter workout, so take that for what it's worth.

Thanks guys,

It's good to be proved right. I wouldn't do it for more than 60 minutes, so I'll go ahead and try it for the next couple of weeks and see what happens. I like the idea of measuring myself to see what exactly I've lost. I started doing that, but began focusing on weight loss itself so it became second priority. I'll start that today.

Thanks for your input and advice guys.

I think some of those studies are a bit silly actually. Misleading at the least. You have to consider the real world. Have you ever heard of a distance athlete say that he has to stop after 40 minutes because going longer is sub-optimal? You ever heard of many of them have any problems with burning fat? There are 24 hour bicycle racers who have been documented with eating as many as 15,000 calories a day and they will still lose weight.

Personally I think the problem is that too many people approach "cardio" by just going through the motions. If you can read a book while working out, you're going way too easy, and yes, I think for those people, staying on a bike or elliptical for extended periods of time doesn't really do much.

You're right corndoggy,

I think there's so many conflicting pieces of information out there. Every day I see in the papers some new study that shows the exact opposite of what it said the previous week, and it's hard to know what is what. And considering I'm still developing a programme that's right for me, it makes it that much harder. But this forum helps in that there's people who have tried everything so I can make up my own mind for myself.

Distance runners look "good" in your opinion?

Not mine. Running for hours on end is NOT conducive to muslce maintenance. If you are going for the lenky, skeleton look..... by all means.

And yes, I know there are some well-built distance athletes. But on average, they are sickly looking IMO. I also know from my past experiences as a trainer, the average look of a distance athlete is NOT what most people desire.

Also, with your second part of your post, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Apples = cardiovascular conditioning

Oranges = fat loss

If you can read a book while working out are you stimulating your cardiovascular system enough to invoke improvements? Most likely not.

However, are you doing something to ADD to your energy deficit, which in turn, leads to fat loss? Certainly.

Hi Steve, what sort of improvements are you referring to? Improved lung capacity?

I'm still relatively a beginner, so I guess I'm more concerned with the steady state cardio, which is said to be ideal for fat burning. But I am still completely out of breath during my workouts..

The benefits concerning the cardiovascular system include:

1. Increased oxygen uptake capabilities (think VO2 max)
2. Stronger heart (it's a muscle too, so have to work it)
3. Lower blood pressure
4. Increased stroke volume
5. Increased cardiac output
6. Decreased resting heart rate

There are many other benefits associated with cardio though:

1. Stronger bones
2. Improvement in cholesterol
3. Decrease body fat (duh)
4. Improved glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity
5. Increase capacity to do work for longer durations of time
6. Increased metabolism

I am sure I am leaving things out, but you get the point.

Hmmnn,

Thanks Steve,

Do these benefits refer to the steady state cardio or to all cardio in general? I notice that you do the intensity interval training - what benefits over the 'normal' cardio are there?

I married one.


There's a big difference between "running for hours on end" and "going well past 40 minutes".

This conversation was just about "cardio" anyway... not running specifically. One of the best things you can do is go on long bike rides. There are TONS of cycling hotties that go on multi-hour bike rides regularly. The people who go even well beyond THAT point are usually the sickly ones.




Yes but if they did kick up the intensity they'd burn even more fat. You can jiggle your eyeballs back and forth reading this and add to your energy deficit... not that it would do a heck of alot of good.

I'm a little lost...you said that another song came on and you were feelin' it and went with the flow. My goal is to be healthier and fitter, I'm thinking of weight loss as a great side effect. So if another song comes on and I'm feelin' it, it just makes my work out more fun. I enjoy working out so if I workout a little longer one day and a little less another I think it's all good.

Maybe I'm not taking it serious enough.

Cardio in general.

And personally, I don't do any interval training right now, lol. Believe it or not. For some reason I was made out to be the "HIIT" guy around here and that just isn't the case. I work it into programs when it fits.

With my personal program, it doesn't at the moment. I am doing steady state cardio 3 times per week currently for 30 minute sessions. And the fat is coming off nicely.