File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I have a weird question about times of workouts. If I wanted to run an hours a day, would it be better/okay to run 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes at night, or would it be better to run 1 hour in 1 fell swoop? Is there any major difference?
>> Anonymous
1 hour in 1 fell swoop.
>> faggot !kzxLmJyzX.
Better off doing one longer session than two shorter ones since your body is using up glycogen and then burning fat as a fuel when it runs low. When you do it in two shorter burts you won't be burning as much fat since you are emptying your glycogen stores, using some fat, then stopping to replenish glycogen stores when you eat again. Doing it in one session allows longer duration of utilising fat as the energy source.
>> Anonymous
Just do one hour all at once. You'll build up more endurance for longer distances. Pace yourself. Make part of that hour warm up and cool down, and run the rest at a pace you can maintain without having to rest.
>> Anonymous
OP here again. The main reason why I asked is because I was hoping to exercise some in the morning before work, and then again after, but I guess that's not an option..
>> Anonymous
A fell swoop.
>> Anonymous
>>256016
Do 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour at night for maximum results then.
>> Anonymous
If you don't eat any carbs or much protein in the meantime, no glycogen will be restored. That's an option.

But no reason to break up any cardio under an hour. Over an hour of cardio is catabolic, and breaking it up is a good idea.
>> Anonymous
Eh, depends on your aim.

Technically for fat loss 1 hour straight would be better.

But if you can't then do it as two 30 minute blocks, the difference is minuscule.

Glycogen in your muscles is replaced when you eat after exercising (as you should), what isn't used to replace glycogen is used to build fat stores...

You better not be running on a treadmill...
>> Anonymous
>>256021
catabolic?
Plz explain thanks. Also I jog/walk an hour and a half every other day.