Hey all,

Quick question: for fat-burning purposes, is it better to do your weight lifting routine before your cardio or vice-versa? Or does it not matter?

If the order does matter, could someone explain why -- physiologically? Thanks a ton!

I lift first. Only because I can't give my max effort on the weights after doing a stint of cardio. It tires me out to run then lift. But won't tire me out if I lift then run.

For fat-burning purposes it does not matter because whether you run first or lift first your metabolism will still significantly increase.

But if you are looking for strength and size, you should be lifting first to maximize your lifts.

Outstanding -- thanks guys. I like the idea of maxing your efforts on the weights instead of tiring out beforehand. I think I'll stick with that idea.

Thanks again.

Oh come on guys...we can do better

It has always been explained to me that:

You want to do your weight-lifting first. When you first walk into the gym you're blood-sugar is up, your glycogen is there and your energy storage is solid. Weight training is high-intensity and very demanding, you want this energy to get the most from your routine. The fact is, fat can not be burned fast enough to "fuel" weights...so much of what you do is anabolic and utilizes ATP/Creatine-Phosphate and glycogen, the more "explosive" of fuels used for on-demand strenous muscle exertion.

I've also come to understand that we shouldn't workout for more then an hour because after an hour we start to bonk/deplete on this potent energy. After a good weight-training session your blood sugar is down and your body is really breaking into the fat reserves to replenish energy. 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!!!


But...what about the notion of following-up the workout with some food to replenish & promote muscle growth? THAT'S TRUE...time and again I've had serious body-builders insist that immediately after working out it's time to pound-down a solid protein shake! The "window" of opportunity is said to be about 30-45 minutes.

So here's the thing....talk to different trainers, read different books, listen to different nutritionist AND YOU'LL GET VARIATIONS ON THEORIES. Research, clinical studies and approaches seem to evolve constantly...but for the most part what I speak of above is generally regarded as spot-on.

What I do is simple...after the workout I generally hydrate with a scoop of protein powder mixed with half water and half lite soy milk, about 150 calories. Then I swallow some BCAA's (to reduce catabolism, as research suggest) and then I do about 30-1 hour of cardio. Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame, yada yada yada....so I take in a few calories after working out and then do some cardio.

This seems to be a great approach if you want to lose body-fat AND gain muscle at the same time. If this approach doesn't work for you; your faith wasn't strong enough!

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 ?

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.

So what are you saying Wrangell? Do you do any actual weight-lifting or intensive cardio sessions? Unless you use the pink weights you cannot lift heavy/moderate weights after an hour of grilling cardio. Your simplistic "fat loss is all about calorie loss" would be better put as "weight loss (both fat and muscle) is all about calorie loss" as that's the direction you are heading.

i belive it's traditionally done afterwards, for max calorie burning. do you find you're weaker/more tired by then ?

I always do cardio first. I get warmed up and I don't know how to explain but i get energy and motivation for weight lifting.

I do both.

First of all, you simply mentioned ' cardio ' in your query - which can be anything from 20 minutes of low intensity steady state cardio to 30 minutes of HIIT to an hour of either low to moderate intensity or " grilling cardio " - you didn't go into any detail as to exactly what type of cardio your were alluding to.

If you had been more specific and mentioned you were doing an hour of grilling cardio at the outset, I likely would have suggested you do cardio afterwards. That said, most gym rats do 20 - 30 minutes of moderate cardio or 20 - 30 HIIT cardio if they do the weight training at the same time,.Reason being, doing 1 hour of cardio and 1 hour of weight training back to back - 2 hours plus - simply sucks up too much time in a single session for most gym rats.

No it's not.

What I said earlier is correct - " fat loss ( burning fat ) IS all about calorie loss ". Thus the maxim you so often see, ' if you want to drop a pound of fat, you have to lose 3,500 calories. ' In other words, fat loss is all about losing calories....it's as ' simple ' as it gets I'm afraid...it ain't rocket science .

As far as muscle loss goes, any significant muscle loss due to training only occurs if your body is ' forced ' to resort to protein for energy. This most often occurs when your glycogen stores are extremely low or you're involved in some sort of endurance cardio. Assuming your nutritional habits are sound and you fuel properly throughout the day ( and before and after exercise ) , doing an hour of hard cardio and weight training shouldn't have an adverse impact on your muscles IMO.

Why hasn't anyone considered separate sessions for cardio and weights on different days? Cardio is aerobic while weights are anaerobic those are two different animals.

Because many people can run and lift on the same day with no problem.

Blood glucose, stored glucose and fats are the main fuels used in cardio while stored muscle glucose and ATP (adenosine triphosphate) are the main fuels used in weights. Do you refuel between running and lifting? How many days a week do you run and lift on the same day?

When ever I feel like running and lifting on the same day. No set routine. And no, i don't refuel. I lift, then I run and I haven't had any problems with it.

Too many people get caught up in the science of it. They get scared that they are going to lose muscle if they go run or something. Just do it. Go lift..go run..then re-fuel afterwards.