View Full Version : Short Cardio Sessions?
05-17-2002, 03:23 PM
Here's the never-ending arguement at my house. Short, intense cardio sessions at various speeds (my way) or Long, drawn out sessions done at mostly one paced speed (My wife's way). We've both lost quite a bit of fat, but, not to boast, I've made more drastic changes than she has. So, should it be up to the individual, or is there a technical explanation for which one is better. Oh, she runs about 4-5 miles 4 times weekly while I run only about 1-2 miles 3 times weekly...I do a hell of a lot more weight training, though. So, who's right? :D
05-17-2002, 03:41 PM
Your wife is ALWAYS right.
Mine is, I assume they all are.
It all depends on your goals. For fat loss, DIET is a far more effective tool than cardio... and it all depends on a host of individual factors.
*I* would do short intense cardio.
Does she lift?
05-17-2002, 03:55 PM
Um...some might call it that. If I lifted like she does, I'd have to kick my own arse. We're exact opposites. If I don't have time to do both things, I'll skip the cardio and lift. She'll always do the cardio first. Oh, and you're right, Paul. Your wife, no matter how...um...wrong she is, is still always right.
05-17-2002, 04:19 PM
Tell her you think short intense cardio is better, not because it's more effective, but because it uses up less time, and you can therefore spend said time with her as 'quality time' rather than pounding the track or the treadmill or whatever.
I don't know how fast she's running 4-5 miles, but that would be a fairly substantial time commitment for me. . . .
Anyway, take home point = don't disagree, redirect!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.