PDA

View Full Version : Aerobic before or after?



Alfman
12-18-2001, 08:46 AM
Trying to gain mass, but I realize I still need to do some cardio. Is it better to do about 10 to 20 minutes of cardio before or after your lifting sessions?

Tryska
12-18-2001, 08:53 AM
after.

ElPietro
12-18-2001, 08:57 AM
After, or on a non-lifting day if possible.

kingpin
12-18-2001, 02:21 PM
I was always under the impression that it's better to do cardio before....Why would it be better to do it after?

kingpin
12-18-2001, 02:23 PM
oh yeah, and is 10 minutes really enough?

ElPietro
12-18-2001, 02:26 PM
Basically when you start working out you are using glycogen as a fuel source (basically sugar). If you do cardio first you will be using up glycogen stores which will leave you with less energy to lift with which means less stress on your muscles which means less muscle hypertrophy. After glycogen, I believe fat is the next source of energy and it's a very poor source so it's better to deplete glycogen while you weight train and then focus in on the fat burning while doing your cardio...

Or at least that's how I understand it...someone please correct me if I got anything or everything wrong here...

ElPietro
12-18-2001, 02:30 PM
Doh! Your second questions happened after I started my reply. I believe it takes approximately 20 minutes of cardio to deplete glycogen stores to get into a fat burning state...so if you do cardio after your workout you will have already depleted glycogen so whatever you do would be burning fat...if you do it before for 10 minutes you'll just be partially depleting your glycogen...

MonStar1023
12-18-2001, 02:41 PM
Definitely gotta go with after bro. No question.

:cool::cool:

Maki Riddington
12-18-2001, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by ElPietro
I believe it takes approximately 20 minutes of cardio to deplete glycogen stores to get into a fat burning state...

*** Nope.

funkigrl
12-18-2001, 06:05 PM
ElPietro was right on the money, hunny. I always, always, always do cardio for 30 min after i'm done lifting. i started lifting again in october, and i've gained 7lbs in lean muscle mass since then. my arms have gone from "guns" to fully automatic assault rifles......:D giddy up!!:nod:
funkigrl

chris mason
12-18-2001, 06:11 PM
It is of no major consequence when you do it, unless you are training aerobically with a higher intensity (say 80% or greater), then you certainly would not want to do it first as you would be depleted before you ever hit the weights. At lower intensities, it is of no real consequence.

Shocker
12-18-2001, 07:24 PM
directly after, no way! - unless you give yourself a break in between.

For example: you can still go "before" if you are say going for a run in the morning and then coming home and hitting the gym in the evening, no worries. I think that this is the best way to put cardio and weights together rather than have them side by side all of the time.

Shocker
12-18-2001, 07:28 PM
oops sorry, my wheels fell off in that last post.

The first sentence should have read that cardio directly before weights is not a good idea...

IceRgrrl
12-18-2001, 08:15 PM
AFTER weights, if you must do both on the same day.

On non-lifting days is even better.

Plus, the cardio seems to help work out the tiredness/soreness on those off days.

Marcel
12-18-2001, 10:08 PM
Maki - nope? why not?

upstate dogie
12-19-2001, 04:43 AM
Whenever I did cardio before lifting it seemed the workout sucked, now I do it after.

ElPietro
12-19-2001, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington


*** Nope.

Perhaps some elaboration on your excellently worded reply?

Of course 20 minutes is a generalization...it can be greater or less depending on what your intensity level is...but "nope" is definitely not helping us. :rolleyes:

body
12-19-2001, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by ElPietro


Perhaps some elaboration on your excellently worded reply?

Of course 20 minutes is a generalization...it can be greater or less depending on what your intensity level is...but "nope" is definitely not helping us. :rolleyes:

you are constanly burning fat. just generally after 20 minutes fat becomes the major fuel source. as if carbs continued to be the major source they would run out very quickly.
when you do really hard intense cardio- more energy will come from carbs than fat. however you metabolic out put will be higher so you will burn more fat in a minute than you would at a lower intensity.
high intensity - 20 kcals per minute
eg 8 kclas from fat - 40% from fat
11 kcals from carb - 55 % from carbs
1 kcal form protien. 5 5 from protein.

low intensity 10 kclas per minute

6 kcals from fat - 60% energy from fat
3 kcals from carbs - 30% from carbs
1 kcals from protien - 10% from protien

(do not take these fugure literally - i just wrote nice number to do the calculation easily)

from the above table you see that high intensity use a lower % of kcals from fat, but overall use more energy from fat. this is where the fat-burning zone idea came from. though as maki wrote its not giving the person the full picture and company have used it to mislead people.

Maki Riddington
12-19-2001, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by body



though as maki wrote its not giving the person the full picture and company have used it to mislead people.

*** Thank you body.
My question is why is it 20 mins generally speaking?
You can't deplete gylcogen stores completely.
You can shift the emphasis using variables such as duration, density and food.
But 20 mins is a number thats been thrown out there by some fitness guru who has read into a study a little too much.