Quote:
Originally Posted by BikeSwimLaugh  Oh come on guys...we can do better
It has always been explained to me that:
After a good weight-training session your blood sugar is down and your body is really breaking into the fat reserves to replenish energy. |
Presumably your body would doing the exact same thing if you did your weight training
after cardio....... would it not ?
So - at least basis of this rationale - there shouldn't be any reason not to do weights after cardio I'd think. Your body is going to burn fat post weight training ( in order to replenish energy ) either way.......before or after weights. Wouldn't you agree ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BikeSwimLaugh THIS is the time to take advantage of situation by then following-up with some cardio...you're body is prime for fat-burning! So yeah; weights first!!! |
I'd assume your body ( in theory at least ) is only forced to burn disproportionately more fat than it otherwise might under normal circumstances - i.e " prime for fat-burning! " - when you have come very close to depleting your glycogen stores ( i.e see keto ).
Given your muscles can hold somewhere around 400 grams of glycogen ( around 1,600 calories ) and a normal weight training session would likely only burn up about 300 calories
of both fat and glycogen, I'd doubt depleted glycogen stores would be relevant issue in explaining any enhanced ' - i.e " prime " - fat loss. This why some people ' claim ' they can still weight train hard on a keto diet is it not ...i.e a normal weight training session doesn't require substantial glycogen reserves ?
To me, fat loss ( burning fat ) is all about calorie loss. So, if you lose 600 calories by doing cardio and then weight training or you lose 600 calories by doing weight training followed by cardio, then in the big scheme of things it doesn't really matter which you do first IMO.
