Not making visable gains

FullOf..IT

Hi,

I am a little but peed off at the mo. I started during weights 5 weeks ago and I took some pics of myself. I have taken some this week and cannot notice any gains at all. The funny thing is that i started at 85kg and am now 89.5kg and my body fat has remained the same @ 24.5%. On top of this im am also progressing with regards to more weight on exercises eg: bench from 35kg - 50kg, squat 35 - 55, deadlift 55 - 80.

Can someone shed some light on this as i thought i had honestly made some gains.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

seaner

you need to give it more time man. What are you measuring your body fat with? Cuz if its a handheld machine then they're useless. You need to do this the correct way .

Are you saying you think you've made no progress? But you said yourself you're lifting heavier weights, is this not progress? Your body fat has stayed the same because you're building muscle - that explains the weight increase. IF you're weight lifting its not a very aerobic exercise, so you're less likely to burn calories and thus loose weight, but instead you will be increasing muscle mass.

Keep it up though.

hardtrainer

OP, I can understand how you feel. You're putting in the effort and you feel like you're making gains, but you're not seeing the results. It's frustrating, I know and honestly, every person on this board has been in that situation. What you need to keep in mind though is that it's a slow process. You have made gains, in terms of strength, and that's important. Just keep it up and you will start to notice changes, albeit subtle ones, but in a few months time you'll look at that picture and you'll see a big change.

seaner wrote:

IF you're weight lifting its not a very aerobic exercise, so you're less likely to burn calories and thus loose weight, but instead you will be increasing muscle mass.

I get what you're saying here, but thats not entirely true. Come do a legs workout with me and you'll see that it's as much a cardio workout as any tough cardio session ;-)

And in reality, you can burn a lot of calories from a decent weights session, not to mention that your metabolism remains in an elevated state for much longer after a weights session than after a cardio session. Also, muscle is an active tissue, so the more muscle you build, the more claories your body is going to use on a day to day basis. It's really a win win situation.

seaner

hardtrainer wrote:

I get what you're saying here, but thats not entirely true. Come do a legs workout with me and you'll see that it's as much a cardio workout as any tough cardio session ;-)
.

I think i'll pass!

But yeah, you're dead right. But I guess I didn't get across what I meant too well! Lets compare 1 hour of running on a treadmill with 1 hour weights. The calorfic burn wouldn't compare.

5 weeks is a bit too soon to be expecting major VISIBLE results though isn't it? And I think he should bare in mind, its not a sprint - its a marathon!

topdog8

FullOf..IT wrote:

Hi,

I am a little but peed off at the mo. I started during weights 5 weeks ago and I took some pics of myself. I have taken some this week and cannot notice any gains at all. The funny thing is that i started at 85kg and am now 89.5kg and my body fat has remained the same @ 24.5%. On top of this im am also progressing with regards to more weight on exercises eg: bench from 35kg - 50kg, squat 35 - 55, deadlift 55 - 80.

Can someone shed some light on this as i thought i had honestly made some gains.

one of the main reasons your not seen a big difference is the fact that your bodyfat is very high. Try work on a diet to increas lean muscle mass and reduce bodyfat, you have obviously made improvments if weight and strenght gains have gone up

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hanley

Dave, I measured 24% on one of those threadmill bf% analysers last week!!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

What sort of gain were you expecting to see OP?* iirc, muscle takes up less space than fat, despite being heavier, so you may have gained muscle(in fact if your lifts are going up you almost definitely have) but it won't be visible as quickly as if you had say, gained weight over xmas.


*Edit: That's not supposed to be sarcastic(realised after posting it seemed like it was) I'm curious as to what you wish to achieve-leanness, hypertrophy, etc.

rubadub

seaner wrote:

Lets compare 1 hour of running on a treadmill with 1 hour weights. The calorfic burn wouldn't compare.

If you only did has time for 3x1hr sessions a week, one being 3x1hrs of treadmill, and the other being 3x1hr of a full body workout with heavy weights and short breaks between sets. Then I would expect your body to use more calories while doing the weights. i.e. every single day your body will be using calories to build new muscle therefore over the course of the week the weight-training will result in more calories being burned. The running might result in more weight loss, but I imagine the weights would result in more FAT loss, which is what most people are after.

rubadub

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I use spring loaded ones so they are constant pressure. I do not use the formulas anymore since they were all over the place. I just measure in easy places, tot up the numbers and know if I have lost or gained. I measure myself so some areas are out, like the back, but I can measure lots of places easy enough.

The OP should take measurements of bicep etc. Gains are not noticeable since they are so slow. It is like living with a child growing up in your house, his growth is slow and un-noticeable, whereas you may see a child of a friend who will seem to have doubled in size overnight since you rarely see them.

t-ha

rubadub wrote:

I use spring loaded ones so they are constant pressure. I do not use the formulas anymore since they were all over the place. I just measure in easy places, tot up the numbers and know if I have lost or gained. I measure myself so some areas are out, like the back, but I can measure lots of places easy enough.

Exactly, I use the accu-measure ones (cheap) and have found them to give me consistent readings. I leave % estimations to the mirror and just focus on the actual mm readings. I know, for example that a side-abdomen reading of 3mm is lean & a reading of 12mm used to be my upper-limit when gaining/bulking. I can easily compare my bodyweight to a previous time when I had similar calliper readings.

I think they are a very handy, cheap and easy to apply piece of kit for anyone who wants to keep an eye on their body composition.

seaner

rubadub wrote:

If you only did has time for 3x1hr sessions a week, one being 3x1hrs of treadmill, and the other being 3x1hr of a full body workout with heavy weights and short breaks between sets. Then I would expect your body to use more calories while doing the weights. i.e. every single day your body will be using calories to build new muscle therefore over the course of the week the weight-training will result in more calories being burned. The running might result in more weight loss, but I imagine the weights would result in more FAT loss, which is what most people are after.

I doubt that really. 1 hour of running 3 times a week will burn up a huge amount of calories (lets say its an intensive run and not a jog), there's no way in hell you'd burn more lifting 3 times a week. I know you're body will be burning calories even when you're not lifting weights, in order to build muscle, and I know that an incread in muscle will raise your metabolism, but there's little chance even all of this combined would out-do the running (calorie wise).

Dragan

seaner wrote:

I doubt that really. 1 hour of running 3 times a week will burn up a huge amount of calories (lets say its an intensive run and not a jog), there's no way in hell you'd burn more lifting 3 times a week. I know you're body will be burning calories even when you're not lifting weights, in order to build muscle, and I know that an incread in muscle will raise your metabolism, but there's little chance even all of this combined would out-do the running (calorie wise).

I don't know that many people who can run at an extremely intense level for an hour, let alone for an hour three times a week.

t-ha

seaner wrote:

I doubt that really. 1 hour of running 3 times a week will burn up a huge amount of calories (lets say its an intensive run and not a jog), there's no way in hell you'd burn more lifting 3 times a week. I know you're body will be burning calories even when you're not lifting weights, in order to build muscle, and I know that an incread in muscle will raise your metabolism, but there's little chance even all of this combined would out-do the running (calorie wise).

Personally, and bear in mind that if I don't workout I don't tend to need many calories, i.e. defiitely not a lightening-fast metabolism type, I find that the difference in the amount of calories I can eat without getting fatter when doing weights versus not doing weights is vast. Cardio just doesn't come close.

Then again, that's me, maybe I do weights harder than others, maybe they do cardio harder than me - who knows?

davyjose

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I generally just use my bf monitor as a reference point, but from day to day it can change anywhere by 4% - ridiculous things.
Back to the weights vs cardio debate: I tried to work out the calorific values of lifting a few weeks ago (didn't go down well ) but while a session of cardio will (for most people) burn more, its a shortsighted view. Long-term the benefits of lifting will give you lower bodyfat.

rubadub

seaner wrote:

I doubt that really. 1 hour of running 3 times a week will burn up a huge amount of calories (lets say its an intensive run and not a jog), there's no way in hell you'd burn more lifting 3 times a week.

Well I have read some sites claiming your body will be using about 300kcal per day building muscle, this might be beginners gains (which the OP will be getting). This is 2100kcal per week, which split in 3 is 700kcal extra per workout on top of what the actual lifting burns. I have read a weights session is about 500kcal per hour, so to match this the running on the treadmill would need to be 1200kcal per hour (500+700). That is a hell of a lot to expect, especially from somebody starting out who is overweight. Lifting is low impact and I think is ideal for an overweight person starting out, who can gain muscle while on a calorie deficit.

At the end of the day a combination of both cardio & weights is probably best. I personally found the weights helped me loose fat very well after plateauing with just cardio.

The 300kcal per day may be for beginners, but each 1lb added is said to use 35kcal per day to maintain, so even though calories used to build the muscle may drop from 300kcal per day, you still are using more to maintain what you have gained.

seaner

rubadub wrote:

At the end of the day a combination of both cardio & weights is probably best. I personally found the weights helped me loose fat very well after plateauing with just cardio..

agree with on this point entirely!

A bit of both is probably a lot better than too much of one!

brianthebard

seaner wrote:

I doubt that really. 1 hour of running 3 times a week will burn up a huge amount of calories (lets say its an intensive run and not a jog), there's no way in hell you'd burn more lifting 3 times a week. I know you're body will be burning calories even when you're not lifting weights, in order to build muscle, and I know that an incread in muscle will raise your metabolism, but there's little chance even all of this combined would out-do the running (calorie wise).

complete bullshitt tbh, you can burn at least as many calories weight lifting as running afaik plus you won't get the added gains of weight lifting in cardio imo.

seaner

brianthebard wrote:

complete bullshitt tbh, you can burn at least as many calories weight lifting as running afaik plus you won't get the added gains of weight lifting in cardio imo.

In YOUR opinion being the keywords here. There's no way that strength training burns as many calories as cardio, thats why a combination of both is ideal in anyone's workout.

I see this everyday in the gym, guys afraid to come across to the cardio section, but will happily lift weights for two hours, and you know what? - Most of them are overweight! Clear signs that weight lifting alone won't burn you the calories that a cardio workout will.

End of.

Dragan

seaner wrote:

In YOUR opinion being the keywords here. There's no way that strength training burns as many calories as cardio, thats why a combination of both is ideal in anyone's workout.

I see this everyday in the gym, guys afraid to come across to the cardio section, but will happily lift weights for two hours, and you know what? - Most of them are overweight! Clear signs that weight lifting alone won't burn you the calories that a cardio workout will.

End of.

Finishing your post with "End of" is rude, for a start. Everyone is entitled to there opinion and to respond to your post. I will simply point out a few things.

1) In my opinion, weights burns far more calories than cardio. Going off the same anecdotal evidence as T-ha I believe this to be through. I have seen far better weight loss success for myself with weights than I ever did with cardio and I have worked damn hard at both in my time.

2) You are saying that cardio burns more calories than weights as an absolute, so I find it funny that you telling other people that anything they say is purely there opinion. Please post links to any studies etc that you have about cardio burning more calories in order to back up that statement you have made. Otherwise, as you say, it's simply your opinion. I have had a nice look around but cannot find anything concrete, so if you have something then please share.

3) All training methods are both great and useless, depending on how they are used. You can have someone doing "cardio" by steady state walking for 15 minutes, or you can have someone doing "cardio" by doing intense hill sprints for 30 minutes. Which one burns more calories? The same can be said for weights.

4) Don't forget the important of diet in weightloss. You seem happy enough to look at people and think "well they look bad, so what they are doing is wrong." This is a little silly as they may have a terrible diet, a terrible workout program or a fondness for mid set pies. Besides, anyone who is lifting weights for 2 hours is doing something wrong.

5) Cardio and Weights both of there place in EVERYONES workout program. It's up to the trainee themselves to find the balance that suits them. Cardio provides far more benefits than being a simple weight loss tool and is great for all round health, so do it.

As a final note, remember folks, there are no absolutes in Health and Fitness, because no matter how hard people feel they might be working they can always be missing an element of the game. For example a poster on this board who I imagine felt they were putting in the work did a workout with me and realised that he was able to step it up a notch. So while you might be convinced that you program is not working, it could be as simple as you not putting in as much effort as you thing.

Hanley

seaner wrote:

I see this everyday in the gym, guys afraid to come across to the cardio section, but will happily lift weights for two hours, and you know what? - Most of them are overweight! Clear signs that weight lifting alone won't burn you the calories that a cardio workout will.

End of.

BULL..... ****.

Personal experience tells me a completely different story. I'm sure there's people here who'll back me up on my results.

g'em

seaner wrote:

End of.

End of nothing my friend. I would hazard a guess that the reasons the guys you see who are lifting and not doing cardio are overweight is a) they are "bulking" i.e. purposely putting on weight (not everyone in the gym is trying to get leaner) or b) their diet is plain old sh!te.

If you were to choose between cardio only or weights only for fat loss weights will win every time.

Increasing your lean body mass increases your resting metbolic rate (muscle is metabolically active tissue, so it requires energy just to exist, fat pretty much just sits there) and it elevates EPOC (Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption) for upwards of 24 to 48 hours after you're done training meaning you *keep* burning more calories long after you've left teh gym.

Building LBM will also make you look a hell of a lot better once the fat is lost as opposed to looking "skinny-fat".

Of course both cardio and weights are uselss for fat loss if your diet isn't up to scratch.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

justsomebloke

ye it doesn't really matter which is actually better cardio or lifting as diet is where it will be won and lost

g'em

Hanley wrote:

BULL..... ****.

Personal experience tells me a completely different story. I'm sure there's people here who'll back me up on my results.

meh you're just a genetic abnormality

In fairness though if anyone wanted proof of the effects of low-rep, high volume heavy training on body composition then Hanley is it. You'll have to remind me of your bf stats but before Christmas his diet sucked and he was cary some extra lbs of fat. He cleaned up his nutrition, kept lifting like a mofo and now the lean baxstard looks like he could step onto a stage as a BBer with minimal extra work. And that's with NO cardio. That's great in itself but he's a powerlifter ffs - the traditionally "fat" lifters :rolleyes:

seaner

Dragan wrote:

Finishing your post with "End of" is rude, for a start. Everyone is entitled to there opinion and to respond to your post. I will simply point out a few things.
.

Ok, i take that on board, perhaps I came across as being rude. But I have been discussing this thread for a few days now, and the post in which i was resonding to said, what I had said was 'b*llsh*t'; so tell me... is this not being rude? Did this person show me respect? Nope. So I got a little worked up

Dragan wrote:

1) In my opinion, weights burns far more calories than cardio. Going off the same anecdotal evidence as T-ha I believe this to be through. I have seen far better weight loss success for myself with weights than I ever did with cardio and I have worked damn hard at both in my time...

This is your opinion, and thats great that it works for you. Honestly.

Dragan wrote:

Please post links to any studies etc that you have about cardio burning more calories in order to back up that statement you have made. Otherwise, as you say, it's simply your opinion. I have had a nice look around but cannot find anything concrete, so if you have something then please share....

If I had the time I would! Honestly, but I liken it to trying to prove the world's round - IT JUST IS!! - (but seriously later on I will get some 'evidence' for you.)

Dragan wrote:

3) All training methods are both great and useless, depending on how they are used. You can have someone doing "cardio" by steady state walking for 15 minutes, or you can have someone doing "cardio" by doing intense hill sprints for 30 minutes. Which one burns more calories? The same can be said for weights...

Yes you're 100% correct here, but my previous posts have mentioned that when I'm comparing say one hour of cardio with one hour of weight lifting, I'm assuming that the intensity is the same!

Dragan wrote:

Don't forget the important of diet in weightloss. You seem happy enough to look at people and think "well they look bad, so what they are doing is wrong." This is a little silly as they may have a terrible diet, a terrible workout program or a fondness for mid set pies. Besides, anyone who is lifting weights for 2 hours is doing something wrong..

I never said they looked bad?! You're putting your opinions and words in my mouth - and i'm making an observation.

Dragan wrote:

Cardio and Weights both of there place in EVERYONES workout program. It's up to the trainee themselves to find the balance that suits them. Cardio provides far more benefits than being a simple weight loss tool and is great for all round health, so do it...

I've made this point too.!!!! SEE ABOVE! I don't disagree with this theory - but my original point was that weight lifting alone won't burn as many calories as cardio workouts will.

And my own final point is : An argument used against me is that the muscle that is built during a normal weight lifting session will at rest, burn calories and therefore it enables you to burn loads of calories - even when you're not in the gym . Well can I just mention that ANY exercise builds muscle - so this argument holds true for cardio AND weight lifting.


Just imagine this - you've got two people who want to lose weight . And thats what this boils down to. Now lets say that are both at the same weight. They both need to lose at least 2 stone. They both are put on the same diet.
Now one is asked to do 3 workouts a week for 4 weeks - cardio.(swimming, running, dancing - whatever)....
ANd the other is asked to weight lift 3 times a week for 4 weeks.

Now the rule is that their workout must last one hour - no more no less. And the must stick by the rule that their intensity should be high enough so that they cannot hold a conversation while doing their workout . Its a rough way to make sure they are both putting the same effort in.


Now who do you think will lost the most amount of weight after the 4 weeks???

g'em

seaner wrote:

Just imagine this - you've got two people who want to lose weight . And thats what this boils down to. Now lets say that are both at the same weight. They both need to lose at least 2 stone. They both are put on the same diet.
Now one is asked to do 3 workouts a week for 4 weeks - cardio.(swimming, running, dancing - whatever)....
ANd the other is asked to weight lift 3 times a week for 4 weeks.

Now the rule is that their workout must last one hour - no more no less. And the must stick by the rule that their intensity should be high enough so that they cannot hold a conversation while doing their workout . Its a rough way to make sure they are both putting the same effort in.


Now who do you think will lost the most amount of weight after the 4 weeks???

Assuming their diets are conducive to their goals...

They'll both lose "weight".

Cardio bunny will lose fat + muscle and look "skinny fat"

Lifter will lose fat + gain muscle and look hot.

Dragan

Seaner, i need to go for lunch bit will be back in a bit to point out the many, many flaws in your logic there.

Hanley

In your example above we all know who's gonna lose the most weight, provided the diet is the same, the cardio folks.

BUT when you consider such (unimportant?) factors as body compostion and appearance then there'll be only one winner I'm afraid, the weights crowd. This isn't me saying "my way's better than yours", it's just the way it is.

Take me for example, In December I was 92kg and carrying a bit of excess fat. I got down to 86.9kg thru dieting alone (no cardio) by early Feburary. Since then I've increased my kcals and have gone back up to 91kg. BUT (and this is the big thing) I've retained my leanedss from 87kg and put on a far whack of muscle.

Now if I had just done cardio from December, and no weights, where do you think I'd be now? My guess is I'd have lost a **** load of muscle, probably be "skinny-fat" and not looking anywhere near as good as I do now.

justsomebloke

g'em wrote:

Assuming their diets are conducive to their goals...

They'll both lose "weight".

Cardio bunny will lose fat + muscle and look "skinny fat"

Lifter will lose fat + gain muscle and look hot.

I agree with this. Doing just cardio will lead to an overall higher weightloss however this will probably be due to losing both fat and muscle mass, where as the person lifting will probably conserve more of the muscle mass.

Disclaimer chances are 4 weeks of weights will not make you hot, chances are it may take slightly longer then this

seaner

Hanley wrote:

In your example above we all know who's gonna lose the most weight, provided the diet is the same, the cardio folks.

BUT when you consider such (unimportant?) factors as body compostion and appearance then there'll be only one winner I'm afraid, the weights crowd. This isn't me saying "my way's better than yours", it's just the way it is.

.

Yep - i totally agree with you. You'll look way better with the weights, but the orginal point was never about who'd look better. It was merely which form of exercise would burn the most calories.


Dragon - i'm off to the gym now so will be a while before i can post a reply.
30 mins cardio - 30 mins weights. Thats my workout FYI!

Dragan

seaner wrote:

If I had the time I would! Honestly, but I liken it to trying to prove the world's round - IT JUST IS!! - (but seriously later on I will get some 'evidence' for you.)

This reminds me or a recent article on T-Nation by a very well known coach call Charles Poliquin. In it he demonished Single Arm Dumbell Snatches, saying they were "dangerous and likely to cause injury". Someone asked him to back this up and explain why and his reply was pretty much "because i said so.

Now then, i'm not one for "because i said so." I like to see a bit of proof and scientific/medical research behind things, especially when people like to talk about things as absolutes.

And there is plenty of proof that the world is round, for what it's worth. The reason it no longer needs to be hammered home is because that proof was provided.

seaner wrote:

Just imagine this - you've got two people who want to lose weight . And thats what this boils down to. Now lets say that are both at the same weight. They both need to lose at least 2 stone. They both are put on the same diet.
Now one is asked to do 3 workouts a week for 4 weeks - cardio.(swimming, running, dancing - whatever)....
ANd the other is asked to weight lift 3 times a week for 4 weeks.

Now the rule is that their workout must last one hour - no more no less. And the must stick by the rule that their intensity should be high enough so that they cannot hold a conversation while doing their workout . Its a rough way to make sure they are both putting the same effort in.


Now who do you think will lost the most amount of weight after the 4 weeks???

Your hypothetical situation is flawed the second you say they are both put on the same diet. The calorific and macronutrient requirements of someone who trains primarily cardio vs someone who train primarily weights as massively different.

On a runners diet, the weight lifter would be unable to recovery correctly or even perform his/her workouts as intensely as they should do to gain maximum benefit from it.

Also, you cannot apply the same rule of "intensity" to a cardio and a weights workout. They are too very, very different animals. When i am doing weights i cannot talk while i am lifting the weight, but i can talk in between sets.

I can also largely guarantee that i can give someone a resistance workout that last an hour and they can stretch it out to two and honestly feel like the worked hard when they haven't.

Finally, the weight trainer, even on a diet that would be optimal for weight training would be adding muscular mass, thereby adding weight. For proper results you would need to take body composition measurements, not run off the scales.

Also, as a note, to even try and compare the muscle building properties of a cardio workout and a weights workout is

a) insane
and
b) uneducated at best.

They are two completely different beasts, one is designed to work on heart and lungs and specific muscular endurance.

The other is designed for hypertrophy. For adding mass weight stomps all over cardio from a great height. Comparing the two is plain silly and to even THINK that the muscle building benefits of weights could be matched by a cardio workout is, no offence intended, stupid.

g'em

seaner wrote:

30 mins cardio - 30 mins weights. Thats my workout FYI!

sean, I'm not being funny with you here, but do the weights first, then cardio. You want to use your glycogen stores for lifting.

rubadub

seaner wrote:

Just imagine this - you've got two people who want to lose weight . And thats what this boils down to.

No, as I was mentioning before that I think people want to lose FAT not weight. You seem to be equating weight loss as being directly proportional to calories burned.

Therefore I could argue that my 8 pints at the weekend helps me burn calories, since I weigh less the next morning due to dehydration and having an empty stomach!

seaner wrote:

Now who do you think will lost the most amount of weight after the 4 weeks???

The weightlifter could weigh more than he did at the beginning and might well have used up far more calories in the process.

Dr4gul4

g'em wrote:

sean, I'm not being funny with you here, but do the weights first, then cardio. You want to use your glycogen stores for lifting.

Thats me convinced to change over.

g'em

Dr4gul4 wrote:

Thats me convinced to change over.

*thud*


sorry, I just fell over at the shock of someone listening to reason...



Edit: I'm presuming that wasn't sarcastic Dr4gul4 btw... I'm not very good at picking up on that kind of thing!!!

Dr4gul4

g'em wrote:

*thud*


sorry, I just fell over at the shock of someone listening to reason...



Edit: I'm presuming that wasn't sarcastic Dr4gul4 btw... I'm not very good at picking up on that kind of thing!!!

no no i was being serious actually, i've heard you guys / gals say it a few times now, so i'll be interested to see what advances i'll make from changing over by doing my weights 1st and then the cardio.

seaner

g'em wrote:

sean, I'm not being funny with you here, but do the weights first, then cardio. You want to use your glycogen stores for lifting.

I've heard that alright yeah, but I really only get the time during the week to visit the gym twice or 3 times max and I have to combine my cardio with my weights.

I'm not trying to bulk up so I think that doing the cardio first is probably a better option for me, as Im concentrating more on my fittness / stamina rather than adding muscle.

I know that the energy I use during my cardio is essential for the last 2 or 3 reps of the weight, and its these reps that really add the muscle mass, but I'm really only doing the weights for toning.

seaner

Dragan wrote:

b) uneducated at best.
Comparing the two is plain silly and to even THINK that the muscle building benefits of weights could be matched by a cardio workout is, no offence intended, stupid.

Oh none taken, BTW - the next time you're on a ship, sailing out into the ocean, I hope you don't fall over the edge!

Dr4gul4

I'm kind of with seaner here on his theory, but i trust g'em a little more dude.

In working with the weights you will build more muscle, which in turns burns more fat. thats the theory.


i'm gonna change over for a bit and see what changes happen.

Hanley

seaner wrote:

I'm not trying to bulk up so I think that doing the cardio first is probably a better option for me, as Im concentrating more on my fittness / stamina rather than adding muscle.

I know that the energy I use during my cardio is essential for the last 2 or 3 reps of the weight, and its these reps that really add the muscle mass, but I'm really only doing the weights for toning.

Dude... Just bow out gracefully now. You've destroyed any credability that you might have had with the above statements.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Weights before cardio, eh? Hmm that's interesting, I'll have to try it. Can you give any more detes on why/how it's better? Up 'till now I've been running my legs off, using up all my energy before going near the weights section in my gym

wasabi

Well, basically, doing your weights first you are fresh and your muscles are fuelled up with glycogen, which they use for energy. So as a result you can lift more than you could with empty glycogen stores,
- therefore stimulating your muscles more and hopefully convincing your body to make them bigger/stronger.

By the time you've finished your weights you've used up a lot of these energy stores. Doing cardio at this point will therefore use a higher proportion of fat as fuel, since there isn't so much glycogen available. Usually your first 20 mins or so of cardio you're basically burning your glycogen and sod all fat, so cardio post weights is efficient for fat burning for this reason.

However, overdoing cardio post resistance training may lead to muscle breakdown as your body uses your muscle proteins for fuel as well, so long sessions might be counterproductive.

Dr4gul4

wasabi wrote:

Usually your first 20 mins or so of cardio you're basically burning your glycogen and sod all fat, so cardio post weights is efficient for fat burning for this reason.

Best Explanation Ever !!!!!!

pbsuxok1znja4r

wasabi wrote:

Well, basically, doing your weights first you are fresh and your muscles are fuelled up with glycogen, which they use for energy. So as a result you can lift more than you could with empty glycogen stores,
- therefore stimulating your muscles more and hopefully convincing your body to make them bigger/stronger.

By the time you've finished your weights you've used up a lot of these energy stores. Doing cardio at this point will therefore use a higher proportion of fat as fuel, since there isn't so much glycogen available. Usually your first 20 mins or so of cardio you're basically burning your glycogen and sod all fat, so cardio post weights is efficient for fat burning for this reason.

However, overdoing cardio post resistance training may lead to muscle breakdown as your body uses your muscle proteins for fuel as well, so long sessions might be counterproductive.

I see...I suppose this would also mean it would take longer for me to improve at running, though?

wasabi

Well the idea is that cardio first will impact on weights more than weights first will on cardio.

If you had specific running related objectives, such as doing a race or similar you'd really want to do your running separately I'd imagine.

But if you're just doing it for cardiovascular fitness/fat burning then I don't see it making enough of an impact on your running performance to be a big issue.

rubadub

scouser.tommy wrote:

I see...I suppose this would also mean it would take longer for me to improve at running, though?

Depends on what sort of running it is. Look at sprinters, do lots of weights have big muscles. Their sprint lasts 10 seconds so it is not like they need stamina, just massive amounts of power over a short time. Look at a pro marathon runner, very thin since they do not want to be lifting around all that excess muscle mass. Same goes for cyclists, usually different guys winning long distance stages, compared to guys doing time trials.

seaner

Hanley wrote:

Dude... Just bow out gracefully now. You've destroyed any credability that you might have had with the above statements.

as did you when you addressed me as dude.:D

http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=2

QUOTE: Should I do cardio before or after my resistance training?
If you're trying to get your weights and cardio done in one session, the research shows that doing a cardio warm-up prior to weights is essential in order to maximize the effectiveness of your workout. This warm-up should be about 10 minutes in length and be of cardio are done, the quality of your lifting will suffer. Your energy sources necessary to power anaerobic exertion will be used up. Since you reap the most benefit from the last two or three reps, it is essential that you have the necessary energy to achieve those reps. That fuel simply won't be there if you do a hard cardio workout prior to your training.
END QUOTE

Now i don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that, dude!:p

Now I really have to leave this thread, its so hard trying to reason with stupidity....and oh yeah - EVERYONE'S an expert.

brianthebard

seaner wrote:

as did you when you addressed me as dude.:D

http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=2

QUOTE: Should I do cardio before or after my resistance training?
If you're trying to get your weights and cardio done in one session, the research shows that doing a cardio warm-up prior to weights is essential in order to maximize the effectiveness of your workout. This warm-up should be about 10 minutes in length and be of cardio are done, the quality of your lifting will suffer. Your energy sources necessary to power anaerobic exertion will be used up. Since you reap the most benefit from the last two or three reps, it is essential that you have the necessary energy to achieve those reps. That fuel simply won't be there if you do a hard cardio workout prior to your training.
END QUOTE

Now i don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that, dude!:p

Now I really have to leave this thread, its so hard trying to reason with stupidity....and oh yeah - EVERYONE'S an expert.

Thanks for posting a source that goes against what you are saying, now its much clearer how little you know on the subject. Your own quote says you should do ten minutes cardio as a warm up-that's not the same as doing proper cardio training. No one here has ever said you shouldn't do a warm up and I doubt they ever will. For gods sake give it a rest on the trolling man.