For a basic, keep-fit routine it can hardly be bad to do it the way you mention. Exercise *is* exercise and no-one can dispute that. But it has to be said that a 30 minutes graduated exercise will be more effective *if* that exercise is graduated in speed and/or effort and builds up to a strong surge of exercise. Calorie burn is calorie burn, but if you worked out for the complete 30 minutes, it might be assumed that as you graduate through the minutes, that you will exert more energy and in exerting more energy you will work your body harder and (in effect) burn more calories.<br />
I work the Treadmill for one hour each day; I could work it twice at 30 minutes. But in working through the entire one hour, I peak at 30 minutes and from thereon I burn more calories because I am working faster and harder. If what you do is a *constant* cadence sort of exercise, then three 10 minutes would equate to the same.<br />
Whichever way you do it, it can’t be bad and it can’t be wrong; it’s better than doing nothing.<br />
Good luck on your exercises :-)<br />
You can achieve the same results in 3 10 min sessions as you can in one half hour session, often in short bursts we are willing to work harder, but a equal combination of both short burst and long, steady exercise is the best.
it's all good, whatever it takes
not if it is aerobic, but if it involves resistance training like I do, it's quite similar