AM Workouts

Baldie

What is the general consensus on early morning workouts i.e. before 9am? My gym opens at 6:30am. If I try and do a good leg session after work, I feel my body if drained from the day's work. Would an early morning session be any better for me?

celestial

Baldie wrote: »

What is the general consensus on early morning workouts i.e. before 9am? My gym opens at 6:30am. If I try and do a good leg session after work, I feel my body if drained from the day's work. Would an early morning session be any better for me?

I know that people generally say that working out in the mornings gives them a great boost for the day ahead, but I reckon that's more for aerobic activity...I know that after a hard weights session I'm fairly tired, whereas a good brisk walk or run outside would probably perk me up for the day. Then again, maybe it's because I'm working out at the end of the day means I'm more tired anyway. It's an individual thing I think. In any case I read in Men's Health yesterday that the potential muscle development is meant to be greater towards the end of the day. I can go get the quote from the magazine later. I take those things with a little pinch of salt though.

Leon11

To me hitting the weights at any time of the day will have the same effect on my body. I usually hit the gym early in the morning, I've done heavy loads for my ability, sure I can be sore at times but you'll be sore regardless of what time you workout at.

It definitely gives me a boost for the day ahead. One thing to note is that I find my lifts decrease by about 5-15kgs on the main compound lifts, prob to do with only being up an hour though. The one plus is the evenings when I'm not training I can just go home and relax and it puts me off to bed earlier.

Gillo

celestial wrote: »

In any case I read in Men's Health yesterday that the potential muscle development is meant to be greater towards the end of the day. I can go get the quote from the magazine later. I take those things with a little pinch of salt though.

Maybe, it because your body get's a longer rest time??

TBH I'd say it's down to personal perfernce, I prefer to workout in the morning for a number of reason;
I'm a morning person
Having a six YO daughter, I like to get home before she is in bed
The gym is nowhere near as busy
I don't have to queue for a shower
I prefer to get an early train so I get a seat

Actually reading those, they don't really affect my workout

celestial

Gillo wrote: »

Maybe, it because your body get's a longer rest time??

TBH I'd say it's down to personal perfernce, I prefer to workout in the morning for a number of reason;
I'm a morning person
Having a six YO daughter, I like to get home before she is in bed
The gym is nowhere near as busy
I don't have to queue for a shower
I prefer to get an early train so I get a seat

Actually reading those, they don't really affect my workout

Wouldn't the period after the longest rest time be when you've just woken up?;)

I think they meant that evening time is when you are best equipped to build muscle due to hormonal/physiological factors, etc, but for me the best time to train is whenever you feel most like training. I'm a night owl, always have been, so that's when I pump the iron:)

J.S. Pill

Leon11 wrote: »

One thing to note is that I find my lifts decrease by about 5-15kgs on the main compound lifts, prob to do with only being up an hour though.

Its really more to do with the fact that you're going to have a lot more energy in the evening as you've been eating all day wheras you're going to be a bit more depleted in the morning. When I go to the gym in the morning I'm in there for 7, Having a good feed beforehand really makes a bit difference to performance. I wouldn't be one for getting up at 5 to but on a big batch of eggs or anything, I'd just have a hefty bowl of cereal and some fruit. Some simple sugars and caffine don't do any harm either. You're wasting your time if you just get up, grab a banana and run out the door.

rubadub

J.S. Pill wrote: »

Its really more to do with the fact that you're going to have a lot more energy in the evening as you've been eating all day wheras you're going to be a bit more depleted in the morning..

Yep your muscles are starved of glycogen overnight. Another poster mentioned dropping weights. I do some training in the morning, since I have equipment in my room, my reps would drop from 12 to 8-10 in the morning. I like the idea of morning training and having my body in a PWO sort of mode during the day. Then I come home and do a few more sets. I like to keep workouts short so it suits me. I was also cycling to work on an empty stomach for a while, and lifting weights and squatting in the morning should have got rid of any glycogen left before cycling, so some say you are more likely to burn fat in that case.

I had tried getting up, eating, and going back asleep, but it is too much hassle for me. I have been working on the "greasing the groove" method in the last few weeks, in a few days my month will be up and I will go all out and see if I have improved much. Dips, chins & pullups

g'em

Baldie wrote: »

If I try and do a good leg session after work, I feel my body if drained from the day's work. Would an early morning session be any better for me?

Perhaps there's a safety aspect to consider? The following is from Eric Cressey's most recent Newsletter "To Squat or Not to Squat"

7. Avoid training first thing in the morning. Because we’ve decompressed overnight, our spines are “superhydrated” when we first wake up in the morning; this places more stress on the ligaments and discs and less on the supporting musculature. As a little frame of reference, full flexion reduces buttressing strength against shear by 23-43% depending on the time of day – meaning that your spine might be 20% safer later in the day even if exercise selection is held constant. Give the spine a bit of time to “dehydrate” and you’ll be much better off.

rubadub

g'em wrote: »

Perhaps there's a safety aspect to consider? The following is from Eric Cressey's most recent Newsletter "To Squat or Not to Squat"

So could you simply lift 20% less weight? Also what sort of weights are we talking that would be damaging. Boru goes on about wieght training being potentially dangerous, but I expect it is only above certain weights(?)

I was reading a Arthur Jones pdf where it mentioned possible damage to the skeleton, but he was talking of wieghts that were huge, way off what I would ever be lifting.

Baldie

g'em wrote: »

Perhaps there's a safety aspect to consider? The following is from Eric Cressey's most recent Newsletter "To Squat or Not to Squat"

Looks like G'em and Eric Cressey have made the decision for me. I don't want to go ruining my back, I've kind of grown attached to it!

I think I'll maybe go for a quick jog on the treadmill or go for a swim if I'm up that early in future.

Colm_OReilly

As a counter to Cressey's point (well, not really a counter to the point exactly): those in the emergency services don't have a choice as to when demands are placed on them, so learning to work out at different times of the day is another way to prepare your body for the unknown and the unknowable.

From personal experience, I've worked out at 7am, lunchime, 5pm, 10pm as my schedule dictates and I haven't found any major difference. For morning workouts I find if I have eaten crap the night before, this will have an effect. Probably because it's effected my sleep cycle as well as given me a hormonal spike.

g'em

Can. Open. Wooooorrrrrrmmmmmssss

rubadub wrote: »

So could you simply lift 20% less weight? Also what sort of weights are we talking that would be damaging. Boru goes on about wieght training being potentially dangerous, but I expect it is only above certain weights(?)

I should put this article in context. Essentially Cressey was discussing how many of his athletes (ranging from baseballers to basketballers to footballers to weekend warriors to lil' ol' PLers like me) don't squat all the time, and as they get older and more banged up they'll squat even less. The squat is still one of the best lifts out there, but much like anything of power you have to treat it with a bit of respect before you go abusing it.

The simple fact is, most people don't squat properly. 95% of 'casual' squatters are quad-dominant and irrespective of breaking parallel every time they sit of the toilet bowl, consider a 3 inch dip to be reasonable depth. This is why he advocates the use of a lot of squat variations to rehab and prehab squat physiology - box squats, front squat, anderson squats etc. One thing that these lifts have in common is that they take away the "very heavy lift" element - you simply can't lift as much with any of these techniques as you can with regular back squats. But back squats creates a massive amount of compressive force on the spine.

For example:

Cappozzo et al. found that squatting to parallel with 1.6 times body weight (what I’d call “average” for an ordinary weekend warrior who lifts recreationally) led to compressive loads of ten times body weight at L3-L4 (1). That’s 7000N for a guy who weighs about about 150.

Meanwhile, in a study of 57 Olympic lifters, Cholewicki et al. found that L4-L5 compressive loads were greater than 17,000N (2). It’s no wonder that retired weightlifters have reduced intervertebral disc heights under MRI.

The spine doesn’t buckle until 12,000-15,000N of pressure is applied in compression (or 1,800-2,800N in shear) – so it goes without saying that we’re playing with fire, to a degree.

Now, I don't know many guys who regulalry train with 1.6 times their body weight on their back. I do, all the time, and so do half a dozen people I know, but we're in the minority and so this probably isn't an issue for the majority. So, long story short, I think the safety aspect of squatting is only really something that should be a deal-breaker if you're lifting loads heavy enough to be considered potentially hazardous. If you're lifting under your body weight or just above it, quit whining, and try and figure out what part of your technique is letting you down that you're not lifting heavier - squats are, after all, the king of exercises

Baldie wrote: »

Looks like G'em and Eric Cressey have made the decision for me. I don't want to go ruining my back, I've kind of grown attached to it!

See my last line above

Colm_OReilly

The simple fact is, most people don't squat properly. 95% of 'casual' squatters are quad-dominant and irrespective of breaking parallel every time they sit of the toilet bowl, consider a 3 inch dip to be reasonable depth.

QFT!

The spine is designed for compressive force. Sheer and torque, not so much (this is where the muscular element comes into play).

On the study quoted: If most people don't squat correctly, does the study go into how people squatted, instruction, show pictures/videos of the depth and position. This is why it's hard to take anything practical from the majority lab studies on exercise. I'm not saying this or all studies are worthless, but it is a major consideration when reviewing studies on exercise science.

As to running in the am as opposed to lifting. Surely if your spine isn't 'warmed up' you don't subjecting it to repeated impact is worse than a heavy load (as in a sexy back squat)? Thoughts anyone?

g'em

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

On the study quoted: If most people don't squat correctly, does the study go into how people squatted, instruction, show pictures/videos of the depth and position. This is why it's hard to take anything practical from the majority lab studies on exercise. I'm not saying this or all studies are worthless, but it is a major consideration when reviewing studies on exercise science.

Can't find a copy of the full paper, I'm just parroting Cressey in my post above. Having said that, if you feel like arguing with science, prove me wrong. I understand that these studies have to be treated slightly sceptically, but they aren't hocus pocus either. I know myself, anecdotally, that when I do heavy squats I much prefer doing them in teh afternoon after I've had a good few hours to loosen up.

Give me a minute and I'll go searching for literature....

rubadub

g'em wrote: »

If you're lifting under your body weight or just above it, quit whining, and try and figure out what part of your technique is letting you down that you're not lifting heavier - squats are, after all, the king of exercises

I only squatted again last night, first time in maybe 2 weeks, I have no rack so just put on my back what I can press over my head, 63kg (stop laughing;)) I do 20 deep squats and my legs are aching today.

I have a dip belt that I sometimes add weight to, then I squat with it, sometime a combination of bar on the back and weight on the belt. This should obviously cause less stress on the spine. I only heard of it on a few websites though, do you or anybody else know of any pros/cons of doing squats with just a dip belt? It is obviously more awkward, and you are limited by the number of plates that can physically fit between your legs. I think some sites said it was more forgiving for people with bad form, that could be bad if they went on to do back squats later I suppose.

Colm_OReilly

g'em,

I was more making a point for the general readership about exercise studies in general, than to argue directly against the conclusion of the study.

As another example: There was a study put out there a while ago claiming that regardless of squat technique, hamstring involvement was minimal :eek:

if you feel like arguing with science, prove me wrong

No! I'll just call you stupid and that will be my argument! This is an internet forum after all

g'em

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

No! I'll just call you stupid and that will be my argument! This is an internet forum after all

yeah well you're a poopyhead and I'm always right. End of, no going back looooo-serrrrr

But in other news, forgetting about the fact that it's an evil scientific paper (and scientists know nothing about real-life under the bar experience yadda yadda) the points that study makes (early morning hydration of the spine combined with massive compressive pressure can lead to unnecessary stress) just make 'sense' from both a physiological and practical point of view?

hardtrainer

Hmmm never really crossed my mind. I tend to lift in the morning, or mid morning (a few hours after getting up). Legs are almost always done in the morning too, though I have trained legs in the afternoon occasionally too.
I just can't say whether differences in how strong my legs were feeling was down to more or less compression of the spine. I always hit 1.6 times body weight, and go up to as much as 1.8 when I'm feeling strong.

The problem with using bodyweight as a measure of weights is that bone has a limited strength, so 1.6 x bodyweight for a 80kg guy versus a 110kg guy is a very different thing. I took part in a study where they looked at the effects of heavy weight lifting (and squatting in particular) on the density of the lower vertabrae. There is an increase in bone density over time with heavy lifting, but it's not linear and so in theory, while lifting 2x body weight for a 80kg guy is great, 2x bodyweight for a 110kg guy is a different story altogether.

I would favour alternating back squats with box squats, front squats etc, to help mix things up a bit and avoid the need to consistently increase the weight on back squats. I definitely think 1.8 times my body weight is the maximum I want to reach. I really feels like its a massive amount of pressure on my spine at that level and while the prospect of hitting the 200kg mark is very enticing, I just don't know if thats a wise thing to do for my back.

For the OP, I would say that whatever time suits you to work out and keep working out consistently, is the best time to work out. For me thats morning as I never skip a training session that way. Sometimes evenings can get difficult, with people going for drinks/movies/dinners etc. and the temptation is there to just skip the gym, but whatever works best for you.

Vegeta

rubadub wrote: »

I have no rack so just put on my back what I can press over my head, 63kg (stop laughing;)) I do 20 deep squats and my legs are aching today.

Pressing 63kg is impressive to me dude. Don't know how you'd manage to press it, squat 20 times and then press it back over your head again.

Hanley

Just on this debate... I've squatted at 6am and noticed no difference in performance or recovery the next day.

ALL of my squatting is started about 60 mins after I get out of bed on a Sunday morning. Regularly with loads over 2x bodyweight for blocks of 6+ weeks of training. Again, I've noticed no negative effects. At this stage it's just what I accept as normal.

On the fluid and superhydration of your disks that EC talks about, I believe I read that this effect has disappated enough in an hour for safety to no longer be a factor. I don't have any links to hand, but I'm sure there's some around. This arises the question of how long one should weight before training in the morning....

rubadub

Vegeta wrote: »

Pressing 63kg is impressive to me dude. Don't know how you'd manage to press it, squat 20 times and then press it back over your head again.

If you saw me at it you may not be so impressed

It is what I can just manage to get over my head, it is not a full on press, i.e. my head is tilted and it just makes it over my head, not a full on military press. I could probably get more over but it is too dangerous to try, and probably would be worn out. Once up their I rest a short while, then do about 8 reps, pause, another few, pause, then up to 20.

Usually I then just sit back on my bed and let it down on one side, and lie back with the rest, I could press it back over, but this is safer.

I am currently trying to get a handstand pushup. I am doing handstands on hands and on pushup handles. I do 1 slow negative, then back up on my feet for another few. The pushup stands allow your head to go deeper. I feel far more comfortable/safer doing bodyweight exercises and have had good results from negatives before. In another thread some guys military press went way up after practising handstand pushups.

other ways to squat with no rack, might be some dodgy form here

http://stronglifts.com/ways-to-squat-when-you-dont-have-a-squat-rack/

"The Steinborn Lift"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qls96q4Phs4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXbCYqQPmw

Reyman

Rubadub - that's risky looking stuff! The dog's the most sensible of those fellows

g'em

Hanley wrote: »

On the fluid and superhydration of your disks that EC talks about, I believe I read that this effect has disappated enough in an hour for safety to no longer be a factor. I don't have any links to hand, but I'm sure there's some around.

That could very well be the case. Of course it can also be argued that you have a) youth and b) technique on your side. You instinctively know when something is right or wrong, does the average squatter have that same knowledge base? We're totally going into pedantics here for sure, and it more than likely comes down to personal preference. I'm a bit "meh" about heavy training in the am, but you like it. Different stokes I guess?

BossArky

I cannot say that I have found much difference in performance from training in the morning, evening, or any other time.

Howver, I dislike getting up early and being wrecked all day from a heavy session, so will stick with evenings. Day time is ok if I can snooze for an hour or so afterwards.

Hanley

g'em wrote: »

That could very well be the case. Of course it can also be argued that you have a) youth and b) technique on your side. You instinctively know when something is right or wrong, does the average squatter have that same knowledge base? We're totally going into pedantics here for sure, and it more than likely comes down to personal preference. I'm a bit "meh" about heavy training in the am, but you like it. Different stokes I guess?

So squatting with bad technique is even more dangerous in the morning than at any other time during the day? I could quite easily contest that both are dangerous and likely to result in injury. So to blame super hydrated discs and early morning training for causing an injury that was REALLY caused by bad form is a very poor showing imo.

If one was to be pedantic, the issue isn't whether someone prefers to train heavy in the morning, as it's hardly a personal preference as to whether or not your body would "chose" to be more susceptible early in the morning if that is the time one decides to train.

g'em

Hanley wrote: »

So squatting with bad technique is even more dangerous in the morning than at any other time during the day? I could quite easily contest that both are dangerous and likely to result in injury. So to blame super hydrated discs and early morning training for causing an injury that was REALLY caused by bad form is a very poor showing imo.

If one was to be pedantic, the issue isn't whether someone prefers to train heavy in the morning, as it's hardly a personal preference as to whether or not your body would "chose" to be more susceptible early in the morning if that is the time one decides to train.

Squatting with bad technique is bad. Squatting with good technique is good.

If you believe the super-hydrated spine theory then both good and bad squatting is more dangerous first thing in the am. Do I believe in it? I don't know, I only saw it for the first time a few days ago. But, to me, it makes sense.

The personal preference for afternoon/ evening squatting for this me lies in a variety of social and physiological factors completely unrelated to my spine. If I feel unhappy to train in the morning, but do it anyway, it's hardly conducive to a productive session.

Colm_OReilly

g'em,

To get back to your point and the original study - does it not assume that compressive forces are bad? And therefore the higher a compressive force, the worse it is for you?

Granted I do not know the tolerance of bone to compressive forces but isn't one of the oft touted benefits of weight training increased bone density, is this not a result of the compressive forces acting on the structure? These are questions I'm throwing out without studies at hand.

Anyway, here's a great study which I'm sure you powerlifters will agree.

g'em

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

To get back to your point and the original study - does it not assume that compressive forces are bad? And therefore the higher a compressive force, the worse it is for you?

Granted I do not know the tolerance of bone to compressive forces but isn't one of the oft touted benefits of weight training increased bone density, is this not a result of the compressive forces acting on the structure? These are questions I'm throwing out without studies at hand.

I haven't seen the original study, I've tried tracking it down but can only find abstracts (and jeebus, I don't even know if I agree with the original point, I just threw it in there for info...:rolleyes:) :

Cappozzo A, Felici F, Figura F, Gazzani F (1985) Med Sci Sports Exerc Oct; 17(5):613-20

Lumbar spine loading during half-squat exercises.

Evaluation of the compressive load acting on the lumbar spine (L3-L4) during half-squat exercises executed with a barbell resting on the subject's shoulders was undertaken. The kinematics of the upper body segments of two male and two female subjects as well as the barbell were described using data obtained by means of an optoelectronic system (CoSTEL). L3-L4 compressive load was calculated using a model of the anatomy of the trunk musculoskeletal system. Filtered surface electromyographic trunk flexor recordings from the obliquus externus and rectus abdominis and trunk extensor erectores spinae muscles as well as measurement of the ground reaction forces were also carried out for predicted result validation.

During half-squat exercises with barbell loads in the range 0.8 to 1.6 times body weight the compressive loads on the L3-L4 segment vary between 6 and 10 times body weight. Erectores spinae contraction force was predicted to be between 30 and 50% of the relevant maximal isometric force.

The magnitude of trunk flexion was found to be the variable which influenced most spinal compression load.

Tiny sample size and using half squats. Not a great start. But it's a notable increase in compressive force as your reach heavier loads. It's not a definitive point, more one to bear in mind I guess?

The Cressey article discussed other points to bear in mind when squatting:
1. Avoid lumbar flexion
2. Optimise hip range-of-motion
3. Optimize ankle range-of-motion
4. Optimize thoracic spine range-of-motion
5. Stabilize the @#*$_@^ out of your lumbar spine
6. Deload the spine once-a-month if you’ve been at this a while
7. Avoid training first thing in the morning
8. Get Lean (to prevent hyperextension)
9. Keep moving throughout the day
10. Fix asymmetries

So really we're discussing a point that I took out of context and should be considered with the others. My bad

Even Cressey points out that compressive forces are a necessary evil, and the positives for squatting greatly outweigh the negatives (assuming that all things are done correctly). But yes, increasing compressive forces increase the risk of bulging disks, ruptured discs, stress fractures in the vertebrae. That doesn't mean anyone should stop squatting, simply lift within their limits just as hardtrainer described. Common sense, non?

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Anyway, here's a great study which I'm sure you powerlifters will agree.

Wooo!!

/runs off to bench on a bosu for sh*ts n' giggles.... FUNCTIONAL!!!!!