I keep puzzling over this, so I thought I would see what others think:
I often read that doing lots of short workouts - like three 10-minute workouts a day - is just as good as one longer workout.
This just doesn't sound reasonable to me. I guess that you could build muscle strength that way- and maybe burn some calories (like with a few short walks each day).
But what about heart capacity and muscle endurance? It seems the only way to achieve either of those things is with longer workouts.
So I have decided that this advice from the fitness/health community is a desperate attempt to get people to doing something as opposed to doing nothing by convincing them that they are getting a result. Which ultimately seems deceitful if they are making people believe that this is a worthwhile or effective way to get fit.
Any thoughts?
I often read that doing lots of short workouts - like three 10-minute workouts a day - is just as good as one longer workout.
This just doesn't sound reasonable to me. I guess that you could build muscle strength that way- and maybe burn some calories (like with a few short walks each day).
But what about heart capacity and muscle endurance? It seems the only way to achieve either of those things is with longer workouts.
So I have decided that this advice from the fitness/health community is a desperate attempt to get people to doing something as opposed to doing nothing by convincing them that they are getting a result. Which ultimately seems deceitful if they are making people believe that this is a worthwhile or effective way to get fit.
Any thoughts?