Faster speed, shorter duration

>faster speed, shorter duration
>slower speed, longer duration
Which is better?

Attached: TreadClimber.jpg (1080x847, 204K)

Faster speed, shorter duration
You burn more calories that way

how much time you got?

If you have all day, going for a 4 hour walk will burn more than doing 20 min of running.

slower speed, longer duration
You burn more calories that way

HIIT for strenght and volume
just compare sprinters vs marathon runners, endurance means shit if you're not explosive.

Faster speed, longer duration.
You burn more calories that way.

5 miles in 90 minutes (strolling) or in 45 minutes (jog)? Obviously one is better for cardio gains, but overall calories?

only correct answers

There is a time and a place for both. Focus mainly on fast speed short time and intermittently throw in the other.

Slower speed, shorter duration
You burn more calories that way

Yes

Depends on your goals.
If you want to build explosive speed, do faster for a shorter period.
If you want to build cardiovascular endurance, slower and longer.

Recovering from torn calf, DVT, and abdominal surgery

In past month have advanced from an hour of 2mph no incline to 3.3mph 3% incline.
What speedwalking goal should I set? I'm 5'1"

>

Attached: marathon.jpg (361x376, 18K)

Don't run
Running is for niggers and cowards.
It will kill your gains

Obviously if you're training for endurance, longer duration wins.

If you're not and just want to lose some bodyfat, hammer the HIIT sprints.

You get good at what you train if you train slower speeds longer durations you get better at that same with faster speed shorter duration pick fatnutz

Faster speed and longer duration, ya fucking bleb

Marathoner looks like than because he doesn't lift. You can run marathons and stay ripped if your calorie/protein intake is sufficient

Medium speed, medium duration
You burn more calories that way

It's almost like huge upper body doesn't help you in marathons.... Who would have guessed?