What is better 2*5000m with a break or 10,000m or something else to lose weight

[JaapvanE]

In an example from my logbook, my TT 1hr @2:21 burnt 724 (generic weight unadjusted figure) a 90 min @2:46 burnt 848; my HM (105min)@2:29 burnt 1155.

Although your point of focussing on the total volume of calories burnt is a very valid one (especially the point about being able to sustain training for longer periods of time), I have to make a nuance here.

Please note that the calorie count of the PM5 is based on E = ( 4 W + 0.35 t ) / 4.2 [kC] (see Physics of ErgoMeters). Oddly, this disregards both weight of the rowing person and the SPM (a portion of work performed, and accounted for in a constant), as well as his heartrate. So the calories in the logbook are approximations at best, ignoring some physical aspects of increasing pace/SPM, and we don't know if these calories are produced by predominantly burning off fat or carbohydrates.

[Sakly]

In an example from my logbook, my TT 1hr @2:21 burnt 724 (generic weight unadjusted figure) a 90 min @2:46 burnt 848; my HM (105min)@2:29 burnt 1155.

Although your point of focussing on the total volume of calories burnt is a very valid one (especially the point about being able to sustain training for longer periods of time), I have to make a nuance here.

Please note that the calorie count of the PM5 is based on E = ( 4 W + 0.35 t ) / 4.2 [kC] (see Physics of ErgoMeters). Oddly, this disregards both weight of the rowing person and the SPM (a portion of work performed, and accounted for in a constant), as well as his heartrate. So the calories in the logbook are approximations at best, ignoring some physical aspects of increasing pace/SPM, and we don't know if these calories are produced by predominantly burning off fat or carbohydrates.

Absolutely right, but the point gets clear.
I can do hard work for 30mins or easy work for 30mins at the same rate to be comparable. One gets above AT at the end, the other one stays way below.
Example:
30r20 PB: 1152/hour - > 576
30r20 SS: 961/hour - > 480
So the SS burns ~100kcals less, but a higher percentage of fat. The overall amount of burned fat is probably the same in both, but the metabolic adaption is different.

[JaapvanE]

30r20 PB: 1152/hour - > 576
30r20 SS: 961/hour - > 480
So the SS burns ~100kcals less, but a higher percentage of fat. The overall amount of burned fat is probably the same in both, but the metabolic adaption is different.

Completely agree. Point by p_b82 is (I guess) that the SS you can keep going for another 30 minutes without killing yourself, allowing a bigger absolute fat burn.

[Sakly]

30r20 PB: 1152/hour - > 576
30r20 SS: 961/hour - > 480
So the SS burns ~100kcals less, but a higher percentage of fat. The overall amount of burned fat is probably the same in both, but the metabolic adaption is different.

Completely agree. Point by p_b82 is (I guess) that the SS you can keep going for another 30 minutes without killing yourself, allowing a bigger absolute fat burn.

I think we all agree on the topic.
Much less intensity can be maintained longer, ergo it burns more calories while it is not draining you (when you go longer).
I compared the same amount of time for one workout to make clear that the "fat burning heart rate zone" does not really exist and the harder workout can burn more fat in the end, even if the percentage from overall burner calories is less.
Surely you must mainly stay below AT, if you want to burn fat, but obviously this is the case if you are not going nuts all time. Working harder is no problem, some threshold workouts can keep it spicy.

[JaapvanE]

Surely you must mainly stay below AT, if you want to burn fat, but obviously this is the case if you are not going nuts all time. Working harder is no problem, some threshold workouts can keep it spicy.

And it keeps people motivated, which is important as well. Fat buring might be an important goal, but I don't think it is a great motivator to get back on the erg 5 times a week. You need some variation and fun to keep yourself motivated and enjoy getting back on the erg. Doing different thing is key, otherwise it becomes a chore.

[p_b82]

Agreed we're all on the same page - it was more a point of total work done.

AKA if you really want to make a bigger difference, be active for a larger duration of time if possible, over the week.

(I am/was aware that the calorie number displayed on PM5/log is a fairly generic one making a number of assumptions, but the numbers themselves are enough to show in overly simplified cases that more time on the erg is better than less time on the erg)

[MPx]

I think we all agree on the topic.

Agreed we're all on the same page

Oh good ... the perfect ending!

[iain]

I agree with the consensus here. However one point not focused on here is that even the most dedicated ergers burn more calories in the rest of their lives than on the erg. Personally I believe that above AT fat burning rate probably declines. It takes more oxygen to burn fat and this is reduced as we stress the aerobic system. Despite this, the only way to burn fat for the rest of the day is to deplete glycogen reserves first. A hard erg session achieves this and allows the rest of the days calories to be higher fat. That is why the main stat is calories burned less calories consumed regardless of whether the training burns fat or carbs. But the most important determinant of the optimum training is what you will continue to do. If you prefer the shorter sessions these are the ones you should do.