Cardio first, or Weights first?

[world_peace0]

What's more efficient to do first, cardio or weights? Thanks for your information.

[Ghost]

weights
dont need a poll thats a fact not opinion

However, what is better is to entirely separate weights from cardio. in both time and with food.

[eXcessiveForce]

more efficient for what?

And do you mean totally separating the two such as running for 2 months, and then begin lifting. Or are you meaning in the same workout?

It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish

[Tom Yum]

If you are doing one workout that includes strength and cardio training, do the strength training first, then the cardio workout. For some reason, you can work on strength first and not sap too much from cardio but the reverse isn't true.

If you are talking about which attribute to build first, I'd say cardio first then strength. Why? Cardio is most people's weaknesses. Cardio work requires you to be mentally tougher. Weight training requires you to be mentally agressive.

[world_peace0]

I'm saying in the same workout.

[eXcessiveForce]

Even knowing that, what are you trying to accomplish.

Fat loss then you can superset, and break up lifting and cardio

Endurance then you can do either or.


strength, then probably lifting followed by cardio would be beneficial.


Size, no cardio at all

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

definitely weights first

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by eXcessiveForce

Even knowing that, what are you trying to accomplish.

Fat loss then you can superset, and break up lifting and cardio

Endurance then you can do either or.


strength, then probably lifting followed by cardio would be beneficial.


Size, no cardio at all

superset for fatloss?

mate thats going to suck in comparison to separating the two.

fat loss is about negative calorie balance, cardio is more useful for this than weights and always will be. weight training during fat loss is about maintaining muscle not burning fat as such, you can do it like that but its inferior.

[eXcessiveForce]

Not if you Superset with HIIT

and Muscle burns more calories at rest, so the more muscle the more energy expenditure,


I know some top trainers who use weights as the primary mode of fat loss. You need to update your information it's out of date

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by eXcessiveForce

Not if you Superset with HIIT

and Muscle burns more calories at rest, so the more muscle the more energy expenditure,


I know some top trainers who use weights as the primary mode of fat loss. You need to update your information it's out of date

lolol

calories burnt are directly proportional to heart rate, fact
muscle does burn more calories at rest but you have to build the muscle first.
steady state cardio burns more calories than HIIT, fact, though you do get a raised EPOC from HIIT this of course one of the points of it.

are you talking about Supersetting weights with HIIT at the same time thereby severly reducing the effects of both?

[eXcessiveForce]

Every study shows HIIT to burn more energy over time, while steady state cardio only burns during the exercise itself.

And using heart rate and target zones was thrown out long ago.

[eXcessiveForce]

If you are looking for a peak performance program.

Alwyn Cosgrove is highly recommended by some. As is his Afterburn program.


Additionally another good person is Tom Venuto, he has a good ebook Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle.

I recommend people check them out

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by eXcessiveForce

Every study shows HIIT to burn more energy over time, while steady state cardio only burns during the exercise itself.

And using heart rate and target zones was thrown out long ago.

No, its scientific fact that heart rate is directly proportional to calories burned.

What was throw out was the idea that certain percentages of maximum heart rate will give you the zones. What has been proven completely is that the zones for each person is total unique and be analyzed by respiritory gas analysis testing in combination wiht heart monitoring. This will show substrate utilization over varying heart rates with 100% accuracy.

HIIT also does not burn more calories than steady state cardio unless the steady state cardio is extremely short. Though it does matter what length of time you are talking about.

Regarding HIIT it is impossible to acheive HIIT if it is supersetted with weights training. In fact it takes a remarkably high output to acheive the EPOC raising effects of HIIT to the level that people require. Generally it can only be acheived by using good spinning bikes with correct technique or sprinting.
Supersetting with weights will not acheive the same results as HIIT will and will exhaust you for the weights part reducing the effectiveness of the weight training. By definition it is no longer HIIT anyway.
Therefore it is superior to separate weights and cardio work, this technique has stood the test of time and makes scientific sense.

if you want to do hiit supersetted with weights go for it. i wouldnt touch it.

[world_peace0]

What is hiit.

[eXcessiveForce]

Again I will ask what your goals are. If you goals are fat loss, then whether you get the maximum out of the weight portion is not really relevant boosting your metabolism is.


HIIT stands for High Intensity Interval Training.

I prefer sprints. Of 1 minute full sprint as fast as you can,a and then 30 seconds at a moderate walk. alternate that way for about 10 minutes.

But if you are just starting out a 1:4 ratio may be needed and work your way down.

Again it all boils down to what you are trying to accomplish.

HIIT has been shown to raise metabolic rate for 24 hours after the exercise. Long Slow Distance of a duration of 45 or moreminutes only raises metabolic rate for the duration of the exercise.