Stupid Question vol 2038473: Duration of a Workout

[Octopope]

There is probably an answer somewhere in here, but after seeing that there is 72 pages of topics decided just to make a new one. So what are your opinions on the duration of a workout. Is it better to spent an hours in the gym doing bit and bobs or is it better to be efficient and sweaty but leave the gym after 40-50 minutes?

 

Opinions pretty please!

[Georges]

The general answer is that it depends on your goals.

 

More specifically, though, unless you are training for something that requires hours of effort at a go (i.e. an Ironman triathlon or a really physically demanding job like becoming a stevedore) there's no need to spend hours in the gym (unless it's fun to you).

[JakeJoh10]

Typically, I recommend no more than an hour, including the warm up.

 

I like having the focus on intensity rather than duration, and I think it's more practical, especially if you're someone with other priorities who doesn't have time to spend 2 hours in the gym.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Jake

[I-Jo]

I'm at the gym for my workout for 2-3 hours.

 

But at this point I'm either doing a HIIT session of about 12-20 minutes (so another 5-10 to kind of "re-group")- but then I am dancing for 1-2 hours.  

 

If I lift and have the time- it's 45 minutes of lift + dance- so that's more of a 3 hour long workout- I recently started spinning too- which is sucking up at least 30 minutes of my time. 

 

But ultimately you can get a great workout in in under an hour- actually you can do a great HIIT session workout in 15 minutes.  No need to be there for 2 hours lifting. 

[Morrigainz]

Agreed. My workouts are generally about an hour - and include running to the gym, lifting, and running back. I would say, if you are a beginner, it's probably best if you start out with a shorter workout a few times a week, rather than trying to do ALL the things. I-Jo is hardcore.

[I-Jo]

yeah don't do what I do- I have very specific requirements- like I NEED to dance- and weight train- and do all the things.

 

I don't give myself enough rest either- but I feel like I can sleep when I'm dead. 

 

I would say, if you are a beginner, it's probably best if you start out with a shorter workout a few times a week

 

this is pretty spot on- 2- 3 times a week at 30-45  minutes is going to kick your butt- or it least it could/should.

[Waldo]

Really depends.

Its probably best to start out being quick and efficient.

Over time though, as long as you have a plan and know what you wish to accomplish, a longer workout tends to be more productive (form is a little better, sets seems stronger, etc..). There is no reason to rush through things unless you are in a hurry.

[AllonsY!]

There is nothing wrong about a long workout, the whole myth that anything past 45minutes will spike your cortisol and wreck your progress is a bunch of hooey. (excepting endless cardio that is). 

 

My personal workouts run from about an hour-hour and a half including my warm up and I usually run a mile when it's all done with. My workouts get a little longer because I lift heavy and rest for a minute or three before performing my next set.

 

Incidentally, never spend your time in the gym doing 'bits and bobs,' go in with a plan, sets goals, and track your progress. If you go in knowing up from that you're going to a general warm up, several sets of lighter weights to warm up to your squat, do a 3x5 squat, back down on the weight and do 2 burnout sets, then finish off with tabata air squats and run a mile. That is a great plan go do it. How long will it take? Who cares?! It'll take however long it takes to do it right. 

 

Bottom line: it doesn't matter how LONG your workouts are it matters how effective they are. I remember a crossfit football workout that was 225Deadlift and Handstand Push ups, 21 reps of each, 15 reps of each, 9 reps of each. Do all this as fast as possible. My time was just over 20 minutes. There were other guys on the board who did it in 10 minutes. Different people will take different times just take what time you need and do it right and then do it better the next time.

[OtakuBosatsu]

I just want to add that this is NOT a stupid question at all.

[Anivair]

My workout yesterday was almost exactly an hour.  it was a warm up, some pulls and chins, a full set of squats, dumbbell work (curls, press, side and front lifts), and some cool down with the bag and meditation.  If I were JUST lifting (ie: the squat with a warm up and cool down and supplemental work) it would have taken me about 35 minutes. 

[AllonsY!]

I just want to add that this is NOT a stupid question at all.

*in the voice of Barbossa* ..... Agreed.

[Cr33g]

Depends on your goals man. Depends on what you wanna do.

 

I only go to the gym three days a week and when I'm there, I'm usually there for an hour, sometimes an hour and a half but not very often.

 

On the days I train Judo, we train for an hour and a half.

 

Then I have one day where I do absolutely nothing and it's awesome. Sometimes though, I might go for a run or do some circuit work if I feel like it. If I do that, it's only going to be half an hour.

[Horsedog]

There is nothing wrong about a long workout, the whole myth that anything past 45minutes will spike your cortisol and wreck your progress is a bunch of hooey.

This is interesting to me.  The research I've seen indicates that hormonal response is optimized at around a 30-45 minute workout (this is for lifting, not cardio, I believe).  I agree that working out longer isn't going to wreck your progress, but at some point workout efficiency should be considered, as well.  Doing unending sets of the same exercise is definitely not efficient - after 3 or 4 work sets there is evidence of drastically diminished returns, to the point of insignificance.  I know BB training will be different, as there is a need to hit a myriad of specific muscles (as opposed to movement training, which falls more in the strength-training realm).

 

Can anyone point to research that deals with this (i.e., that longer strength-based workouts are still effective)?  Thanks!

[sylkamaru]

For strength training,  I think if you can keep on more than one hour, it is not intense enough

 

For cardio there is no rules, you can go really hard short time like tabata, hiit, or long steady...

[Waldo]

 

This is interesting to me.  The research I've seen indicates that hormonal response is optimized at around a 30-45 minute workout (this is for lifting, not cardio, I believe).  I agree that working out longer isn't going to wreck your progress, but at some point workout efficiency should be considered, as well.  Doing unending sets of the same exercise is definitely not efficient - after 3 or 4 work sets there is evidence of drastically diminished returns, to the point of insignificance.  I know BB training will be different, as there is a need to hit a myriad of specific muscles (as opposed to movement training, which falls more in the strength-training realm).

 

Can anyone point to research that deals with this (i.e., that longer strength-based workouts are still effective)?  Thanks!

It depends. Reseach is and always will be WAY behind actual experience on things like this. For the most part strength based research (and diet research FWIW) just tries to provides reasons for why the stuff BBers and PLers do works. They are for the most part still trying to explain that which was common knowledge from the 70's and 80's onward. 

Returns on what? If you are trying to get stronger as fast as possible, going heavier (which leads to fewer reps and sets) will always be a superior option. If you are trying to get bigger, doing more work (load-volume) will always be a better option. If you want to increase your strength endurance, grow your total workout volume at light loads.

Totally disagree with diminishing returns on higher sets. True for some applications, yes. If 2 people wish to increase from 10 pullups to 20 pullups in a single set, person A does 3-4 sets at a time and person B does 10+ sets at a time, person B will lap person A on the way there. If you want to get bigger leg muscles, 5 working sets should be a starting point bare minimum for a hypertrophy workout, with even more work being preferrable.

 

For strength training, I think if you can keep on more than one hour, it is not intense enough

Not intense enough for what?

If you are looking to get stronger, the slower the better. Quality work leads to quality progress.

For hypertrophy and endurance workouts, yes, speed is valuable since working in a fatigued state leads to increased workout efficiency. This is important if you'd like to avoid the wall, as you can get in more effective volume at a lower calorie/fatigue cost if you go faster.

[Horsedog]

 Returns on what? If you are trying to get stronger as fast as possible, going heavier (which leads to fewer reps and sets) will always be a superior option. If you are trying to get bigger, doing more work (load-volume) will always be a better option. If you want to increase your strength endurance, grow your total workout volume at light loads.

Totally disagree with diminishing returns on higher sets. True for some applications, yes. If 2 people wish to increase from 10 pullups to 20 pullups in a single set, person A does 3-4 sets at a time and person B does 10+ sets at a time, person B will lap person A on the way there. If you want to get bigger leg muscles, 5 working sets should be a starting point bare minimum for a hypertrophy workout, with even more work being preferrable.

 

Yes, agreed that the research was narrow in scope, and that for some applications a large amount of low-rep, low-weight (by % of 1RM) is better.  If I remember correctly, the research (multiple papers and meta-analyses) was based around the 6-12RM range.  So an example protocol would have compared 5 sets of 8 reps @ 8RM vs.  3 sets of 8 reps @ 8RM and showed no statistically significant difference.  Hope that clarifies.  Also, I believe the same results (i.e., no statistical significant differences) applied to 1RM and hypertrophy.  Test subjects were relatively young, experienced trainees (and male, I think).  I'll try to find it over lunch and link it...

[Horsedog]

Found a summary with references to the individual papers http://trainingscience.net/?page_id=94

 

Seems there was a trend towards more hypertrophy with higher sets (>4 sets), but no definitive conclusion.  Strength gain differences between 2-3 sets vs. 4-6 sets were not significant. 

 

Edit - the findings were results of meta-analyses, which are...difficult...to do properly.  In fact, even when done properly they can reach incorrect conclusions (just the nature of the beast).  However, a (typical) single strength and/or hypertrophy RCT just doesn't have enough of a sample size to draw definitive conclusions (as with any single small-sampled RCT).

[sylkamaru]

Sorry if I wasn't quite clear, I did not mean that you have to go all out until you puke, I totally agree that quality and patience are mandatory to make good progress

I mean intense as challenging.

 

What I wanted to say is if you can go on with half an hour of push up and pushing exercise, there is a chance the exercise has become too easy, and do not stress you enough now to make your body stronger or more endurant

 

Even for endurance, something like 5 x 50 air squats with 1-2 min rest will definitely work endurance, and is enough to call it a day for the legs. And should take less than 15 min.

 

Longer is not always better (for strength training I mean... ) It can even cause more soreness which will make next workout counterproductive...

 

(except for isolation, because you have sooooo many exercise to do each time... boredom would kill me waaaayyyy before fatigue But I don't think isolation is in the Rebel spirit as "appareance comes from fitness" )

[Thestrel]

I have been wondering this myself, since I"m just starting out (literally, yesterday I did 1 rep of the beginner body weight workout...I am very out of shape.)  Today, I did 20 minutes on the treadmill.  I was worrying that I was 'doing it wrong' by not pushing myself further.  It's OK to build up to longer workouts, right?

[Octopope]

I just want to add that this is NOT a stupid question at all.

<3

 

I love that everyone is helping me with this dilemma! Thank you all lovelies! 

[I-Jo]

I have been wondering this myself, since I"m just starting out (literally, yesterday I did 1 rep of the beginner body weight workout...I am very out of shape.)  Today, I did 20 minutes on the treadmill.  I was worrying that I was 'doing it wrong' by not pushing myself further.  It's OK to build up to longer workouts, right?

if you do nothing... doing small somethings is a bajillion times better than either continuing to do nothing or doing to much.

doing to much is the downfall of almost every new years resolutioners. it's good to push yourself out if your comfort zone but you can't over do it . it's just not that good lol

[Cap Carlos]

Well, I only do weightlifting, since I'm trying to put on some muscle mass and I've always been skinny so... I try to keep my workouts under an hour, more or less. Doing a upper/ lower split currently but may go a lower/ push/ pull 3 way split eventually. Anyways, 45 min. to an hour seems fine if you are doing heavy lifting (this is all relative to your size and current strength of course). I feed myself with some fruit or easily digestible carb and pre workout and take some BCAA drink during wkt so, should be enough to keep me from going catabolic. Or something like that.