Twinning Your Workouts: Did Doubling Your Efforts Pay Off?
Do more is always better when it comes to workouts, right? That’s the assumption that most of us make more effort, greater reward. But is that actually the case? What if you could do the same thing in half the time?
That question led twin brothers Hugo and Ross Turner, both aged 36, to take on a self-designed fitness experiment. As identical twins, they provide a rare opportunity for side-by-side testing with minimal biological variability. This time, they set out to answer a simple but intriguing question: does doubling your workout time actually deliver double the results?
The Twins’ Unique Approach to Self-Experimentation
Hugo and Ross Turner, born in Exeter, aren’t new to the world of physical challenges or scientific self-study. In 2021, they ran a dietary comparison experiment one brother went plant-based, the other omnivorous for 12 weeks to see how their bodies would respond. By using their identical DNA as a control factor, they were able to isolate the effects of lifestyle changes with remarkable precision.
This time around, their interest was in fitness. The idea was simple: keep the same workout routine, diet, and lifestyle practices but change only the length of the workouts. Hugo would exercise for 20 minutes a session, and Ross would double it to 40 minutes.
They allotted themselves 12 weeks, doing a total of 60 workouts in that period. The assumption? That increased time in the gym would result in much improved physical outcomes.
Workout Design and Measuring the Outcomes
To be sure that the results would be accurate and fair, the twins designed the workouts to be as similar as possible with the exception of the time factor. Each workout started off with the same compound strength exercises: squats, deadlifts, bench presses, and stretches.
Hugo stopped at the 20-minute mark and went into recovery mode. Ross, however, did the whole routine again, so his sessions were 40 minutes long. Ross thus did 2,280 minutes of training for 12 weeks, leaving Hugo with only 1,240 minutes done.
Each training session was monitored with Boditrax machines devices that record statistics such as muscle mass, percentage of body fat, and weight. With this, they were able to gather real-time feedback prior to each visit to the gym. Hugo says that these daily readings made the physical impact of their differing workout routines easy to identify, eliminating guesswork from the process.
Significantly, their diets were almost the same. They ate 2,000–2,500 calories per day, mostly whole foods, supplemented by daily protein shakes to facilitate muscle gain. By maintaining the nutritional intake invariable, they eliminated yet another possible variable, making workout time the sole major difference.
The Results: Was the Extra Effort Worth It?
By the end of 12 weeks, both brothers had improved their fitness. They were stronger, fitter, and more energized in general. But what came as a shock was when they compared the measured differences between their findings.
Ross, who had trained for twice as long, managed only marginally improved results, less than a 5% improvement over Hugo in all categories. Muscle gains were nearly identical. Percentage body fat revealed a small difference and Hugo actually beat Ross on some days. Weight remained even across all days, and Boditrax charts tracked parallel to each other, almost perfectly.
So what does that prove?
Even training for twice the amount of time, Ross’s hard work showed up only in extremely slight improvements. There was no spurt in muscle, strength, or fat loss. If anything, the distinctions were too subtle to be worth the additional hours at the gym.
For Ross, the result was demoralizing. He conceded that struggling through longer workouts only to experience minimal gains led him to question the payoff of time-based training intensity. Hugo, on the other hand, felt vindicated. His brief but intense sessions appeared to provide almost identical gains with significantly less physical cost.
Physical Strain vs. Mental Motivation
Outside of numbers, their physical and mental experiences couldn’t have been more different.
Hugo enjoyed the 20-minute sessions as stimulating and accessible to maintain. The shortness of each exercise session ensured it was easy for him to remain motivated without fearing gym days. He was done with each session feeling satisfied, not drained. For him, the brief sessions were “something to look forward to,” and he never reached a wall of tiredness.
But there was a downside. Hugo sometimes felt he hadn’t challenged himself enough. The absence of physical fatigue resulted in a sense of incompleteness, as if he hadn’t worked hard enough for the results he was achieving. Nevertheless, the ability to sustain shorter sessions provided him with an edge in long-term consistency.
Ross, however, found the 40-minute sessions arduous. Mentally, he could not remain focused, but particularly when he was forced to repeat the same circuit while Hugo was through. Physically, the impact had been obvious. Doubling every move doubled the pressure without offering double the reward. Recovery became harder, and fatigue began to creep into his daily routine.
He also indicated the psychological frustration of doubling effort for small additional return. Being able to recognize only slight differences after putting in twice the effort made it more difficult to make a case for the extra time and energy. That is the mental effect, Ross continued, rather as significant as the physical one.
Lessons on Sustainability, Consistency, and Perspective
Ultimately, both twins concluded that sustainability was the key take-away. Although Ross did manage marginally better figures, the margin was too small to render longer sessions more appealing particularly if long-term consistency is the intention.
Hugo explained the way brief, reasonable workouts promote daily repetition. He was more inclined to continue training on a regular basis without experiencing burnout. And in the busy world of everyday life schedules, work, and personal obligations that’s a great benefit.
Ross concurred. Though he worked harder, he could not keep up the enthusiasm. He claimed the mental setback of acknowledging the additional time didn’t really count had an influence on his dedication in the future. He conceded that the evidence made him rethink his method, prioritizing intelligent, rather than lengthy, workouts in the future.
Naturally, specialists advise us to take these findings in perspective. Michael Graham, a senior exercise physiology lecturer, noted that the experiment, although intriguing, only had two participants and not full scientific controls. He cautioned people from making sweeping conclusions based on it since lifestyle, genetics, and history of training can affect the way individuals react to various routines.
Yet, it has some useful insights. It emphasizes the use of personalized, realistic training plans that value consistency over volume. It also demonstrates that more is not necessarily better particularly if “more” causes demotivation or injury.
This twin brother experiment presents a strong argument: for fitness, quality and consistency are more important than clock time. If 20 focused minutes can get me almost the same results as 40, maybe we should not measure workouts by time only anymore.
The question should instead be: Can I maintain this in the long term? For most, brief, intense, and sustainable sessions may be the key to improved health not because they are easier, but because they are easier to stick with. And occasionally, that’s the actual victory.
