Free-Weights = 10.4kcal, Machines = 8.9 kcal, Incorporating Cardio in a Weight Training Circuit = 13 kcal/min Burned

This article is not supposed to encourage the use of exercise as a means to eat more junk. After all a psychotherapeutic / psychiatric ward is the only place this form of exercise addiction is going to get you.

Ok, let me briefly make one thing unmistakably clear: you should never train to burn calories (even worse, to eat pizza and pie, because you "deserve it"). Good reasons to train are (a) to build muscle, (b) build strength, (c) improve your conditioning and (d) general health. It is likewise a good idea to (e) support your dieting efforts with strength and cardio training that is meant to increase the rate of fat/muscle loss.

Yet even if you don't train to burn calories, it can be very useful in all these contexts to have at least an estimate of how much energy you're spending during the workouts. What for? Well, to know roughly how much more you'd had to eat to stay in an energy and how much more would be too much so that fat gain would be the inevitable consequence.

You can learn more about the optimal exercise order at the SuppVersity

What's the Right Training 4 You?

Hypertrophy Blueprints

Fat Loss Support Blueprint

Strength Training Blueprints

Cardio + Weights on One Day=

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

Speaking of energy balance(s), you should also be aware that your body will adapt to chronically reduced energy intakes. In other words: If you have been dieting for say 8 weeks, it is not unlikely that you are spending slightly, but statistically significantly less energy for the same workout (15 reps 70% of 15 RM, 2 s:1 s cadence; 45 s per exercise; only 15 s of "rest" = moving to the next exercise | running during the CE was performed at 70%  | the total duration of one lap of the circuit was 7 min and 45 s, for the total time the subjects actually worked out (not how long they were in the gym, it was 3x 7:45 = 23 min and 15 s | see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Overview of the standardized circuit resistance training protocols in Benito, et al. 2016.

This, as well as the individuality and the fact you are no identical clones of the 15 men and 14 women aged from 18 to 28 years, who participated in a recent study from the Technical University of Madrid (Benito. 2016), renders the absolute energy expenditures I've plotted for you in Figure 2 relatively meaningless (note: the subjects were pretty active, with of exercise 3-5h/week - better than your average study subjects).

Figure 2: Net energy expenditure (Kcal) in men (n = 15) and women (n = 14) during the entire circuit weight training protocol (Benito. 2016) - Percentages represent the individual contribution of aerobic energy expenditure (gray) and anaerobic energy expenditure (black) to total energy expenditure. CM: Circuit Machine training protocol; FW: Free Weight-training protocol; CE: Combined Exercise training protocol. a p<0.05 with CM, b p<0.05 with FW, ** p<0.001.

As you can see in Figure 2 the analysis of the data that was acquired during the three standardized circuit resistance programs (see Figure 1), show that...

• the combined resistance + endurance training regimen (CE, exercises see Figure 1, bottom), with 13kcal per minute (8.4 kcal/min in women), was by far the most energetically demanding (is also had the highest fat/glucose oxidation ratio, meaning more workout fuel came from fat - not necessarily body fat, though - in CE) and that 
• free weight (FW) training, with 10.4kcal/minute (6.4 kcal/min in women), was more demanding than machine-based circuit training (CM), with only 8.9 kcal/minute (5.4 kcal/min in women).

I guess this won't really get you excited... well, rightly so. After all, many of you may not be happy with health and weight loss as their primary goals and will thus pass on combined training, anyway. And still, there is something in this study that is actually quite intriguing - even for those who don't do cardio because they're afraid it will hurt their gains (which is bogus, if it's not done excessively) - and this "something" is the fact that the increased energy expenditure in the combined training group (CE) did not go hand in hand with increased ratings of perceived and objective markers of exertion. 

Figure 3: Physiological parameters (mean±SD) measured during Circuit Machine training protocol (CM), Free Weight training protocol (FW) and Combined Exercise training protocol (CE) - data expressed relative to arithmetic averages for VO2, RER, LA- and RPE; thus 9% reduced RPE in CE mean that CE is 9% less fatiguing than the avg. of all tested workouts.

On the contrary combining weights + cardio (CE), produced significantly (both statistically, as well as practically) lower lactate concentrations and significant reductions in the subjects' subjective rating of their individually perceived exertion (RPE, Figure 3). Or, as the authors' have it: "[A] combination of resistance exercises and running produces VO2 above 50% VO2max, the highest EE, and the lowest perception of effort" (Benito. 2016). This is interesting and in a way counter-intuitive as one may expect that the most energetically demanding workout would leave the subjects with the highest perceived and objective markers of exertion.

The study at hand reminds me of the results of two previously discussed studies on (top) how people underestimate the energy expenditure during body weight exercises such as push-ups and (bottom) the efficacy of body weight squat workouts.

How come combined training burns more energy, but is less fatiguing: How and why we fatigue is, unfortunately, an insufficiently understood process. Therefore, I will refrain from speculation (also I believe that the effects are central nervous system mediated) and highlight a few other take-home messages from the scientists' discussion of the results: (A) While the way the researchers link intra-workout energy expenditure and weight loss is to be criticized, they are right to point out that the study at hand confirms (once again) that "the idea of 'the higher the weight lifted, the higher the EE' is not applicable" (Benito. 2016). This does (B) not mean that lighter weights are always better, but as Benito, et al. rightly remark, the fact that a combination of resistance exercises and running produces VO2 above 50% VO2max, the highest EE, and the lowest perception of effort is certainly attractive for everyone who's trying to cut body fat and willing to do both "weights" and "cardio". (C) Switching back and forth between resistance training and running could also, "motivate those who do not like tradi-tional strength training or continuous cardiovascular training" (Benito. 2016) and can benefit from the often underesti-mated energy demands of combined training | Comment!

References:

• Benito, Pedro J., et al. "Cardiovascular Fitness and Energy Expenditure Response during a Combined Aerobic and Circuit Weight Training Protocol." PLOS ONE 11.11 (2016): e0164349.

Double Your Muscle, Maximize Your Endurance Gains: Train in the PM, not the AM, and Do Your Cardio Before Weights

Both, time and exercise order matter - at least when untrained subjects have trained for at least 12 weeks.

The debate about whether you should (a) do cardio and weights together and (b) whether you shall do either or both in the AM or PM for maximal muscle anabolism is older than the SuppVersity and has thus been addressed in many of the hitherto published approx. 2300 articles on suppversity.com.

The reason you should still read today's article, however, is that the approach to the topic is a bit different than usual, so that the study, which certainly leaves much to be desired (more on that in the bottom line), adds more practically relevant (which you cannot say about studies measuring the testosterone : cortisol ratio, for example) data.

AM or PM, you got to make sure you slept / sleep enough & well before or after workouts

Sunlight, Bluelight, Backlight and Your Clock

Sunlight a La Carte: "Hack" Your Rhythm

Breaking the Fast to Synchronize the Clock

Fasting (Re-)Sets the Peripheral Clock

Vitamin A & Caffeine Set the Clock

Pre-Workout Supps Could Ruin Your Sleep

Said data has been gathered over 24 weeks during which previously untrained, but healthy participants none of which belonged to either an extreme morning or evening chronotype or worked night shifts followed identical strength (S) and endurance (E) training regimen. The interesting and uncommon thing was was, that these workouts took place either in the AM (m, as in morning) or in the PM (e, as in evening) and were, on top of that, differently ordered (i.e. endurance (E) before strength (S) = E+S or strength (S) before endurance (E) = S+E) - according to cocker we should thus have 2x2 = four groups... and indeed, here they are:

• mE+S n=9, training in the morning, endurance before strength
• mS+E n=9, training in the morning, strength before endurance
• eE+S n=12, training in the evening, endurance before strength
• eS+E n=12, training in the evening, strength before endurance

In that, the workouts were identical with two workouts per week in the first and two-to-three workouts per week in the second 12-week-period (an additional session was added every two weeks so that all participants performed 5 training sessions in a 2-week period, the reasoning behind this was to "allow further progression in training adaptations" | Küüsmaa. 2016). Here are some details:

"The morning training groups (mE+S and mS+E) performed all training sessions between 6:30-10:00h, while the evening training groups (eE+S and eS+E) performed their training sessions between 16:30-20:00h. The training programs were identical for the E+S and S+E group independent of the training time, only the sequence of strength and endurance training was reversed. Endurance and strength training were combined into the one training session so that no more than a 5-10 minute break was allowed during the two training sections. The duration of the combined endurance and strength training sessions progressively increased from 60 to 120 minutes. All the training sessions were supervised.

Strength training consisted of exercises aimed at improving both maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy and was planned as a whole body periodized program with the main focus on knee extensors and flexors as well as hip extensors. Each training session consisted of three lowerbody exercises: bilateral dynamic leg press, seated dynamic knee extension and flexion. Four to five exercises were performed for other main muscle groups (lateral pull down, standing bilateral triceps push down, bilateral biceps curl, seated military press, or bilateral dumbbell fly, trunk flexors and extensors). Strength training was designed to improve muscular endurance in the first 4 weeks, which was performed as circuit training (intensity 40-70% of 1 RM). The subsequent 4 weeks (weeks 5-8) were designed to produce muscle hypertrophy (intensity 70-85% of 1 RM) and followed by 4 weeks (weeks 9-12) of mixed hypertrophic and maximal strength training (intensity 75-95% of 1 RM). A similar strength training program with slightly higher intensities was carried out also during the second 12 weeks of training" (Küüsmaa. 2016).

The cardio workouts were a mix of interval and continuous cycling on an ergometer. The sessions averaged from 30-50 minutes. Interval (85-100% of HRmax for 4x4 min, 4 min active rest in between) and continuous (65-80% of HRmax) training protocols were performed weekly.

Yes, this study really had it all, HIIT, steady state, weights... and no, that does make it more reliable. Rather than that, it makes it more difficult to identify cause and effect and thus to interpret the results. This is why I would like to warn you: do not to assume that either of the initially raised questions for the optimal workout time and order would be answered by this single study once and for all. Needless to say that this doesn't mean the study results are worthless, but if you feel what worked for the subjects in the study at hand doesn't work for you, don't be a lemming and stick to a protocol of which you feel and see after giving it a fair chance (3-4 weeks) that it's bad for you.

As you'd expect it from a study like this, participants were tested for dynamic leg press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and time to exhaustion (Texh) during an incremental cycle ergometer test both in the morning and evening before, during (12-week, see Figure 1) and after the 24-week intervention. all relevant information to address the practical value of training in the AM vs. PM and doing endurance before or after weights - a fact I would like to highlight (and applaud to), because that is unfortunately not the case in many other studies that lack practically relevant study outcomes, such as performance increases (here 1RM and Texh) and gains (here CSA values).

Figure 1: Study design and measurements. 1 RM = one repetition maximum in the dynamic leg press; Texh = time to exhaustion during the incremental cycling test; CSA = cross-sectional area; m = morning; e = evening (Küüsmaa. 2016)

I mean, who cares about acute (post workout) levels of exhaustion, 2-6h max protein synthesis or the testosterone to cortisol ratio and its diurnal rhythm if neither of these values can answer the question we are actually asking: Does it help you make extra strength, endurance or muscle gains? Not me (if you care, here's another of these studies, just out, speculating based on questionable markers of a "differential hormonal milieu" and free to read | Burley. 2016), because all these values are as reliable predictors of muscle gains as yesterday's weather forecast for Christmas... well, ok, maybe a bit better, but eventually it's results like those, Küüsmaa et al. present in their recent paper in Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism, that matter:

• 

  It's the Same (!) Time of the Day That Matters If You Want to Excel | Learn more about the effects of habitual training times on performance!

  1RM gains were similar in the morning (14-19%; p<0.001) and evening (18-24%; p<0.001); no sign time-of-day-effect
• CSA increased in all groups by week 24 (12-20%, p<0.01), however, during the training weeks 13-24 the evening groups gained more muscle mass; time-of-day main effect; p<0.05)
• Texh increased in all groups in the morning (16-28%; p<0.01) and evening (18-27%; p<0.001), just as the 1RM gains without effect of the exercise order, but with the data suggesting an advantage of doing cardio first (E+S) at 12 and 24 weeks

The overrated testosterone to cortisol ratio, the scientists assessed as well and even its diurnal rhythms, on the other hand, remained statistically unaltered by the training order or time at any point in the study. So that the study only confirms what I have said before to use the Bro's "holy yardstick of anabolism", i.e. the testosterone to cortisol ratio (T/C) after or in the vicinity of your workouts as an "anabolic guide" won't work, because it's simply not an acceptable predictor of any of the previously mentioned relevant training outcomes (strength, muscle size, and endurance).

Figure 2: Change (%) of the CSA of vastus lateralis (left), endurance performance in the AM (right, top) and PM (right, bottom) in the different training groups - left figure: *sign. (p < 0.05) within-group increase; # sign. different from controls; & sign. time-of-day main (TOD) effect | right figures: ¤ sign. between group differences as indicated; # sign. different from controls; $ sign. order main effect; sign. time-of-day (TOD) main effect (Küüsmaa. 2016).

The actual relevant messages of the study at hand have thus nothing to do with the T or C values or the T/C ratio. Rather than that, the present study "indicate[s] that combined strength and endurance training in the evening may lead to larger gains in muscle mass [in the 2nd part of the study, the PM training groups gained twice the amount of muscle the AM group did], while the E+S training order might be more beneficial for endurance performance development" (Küüsmaa. 2016). What is interesting, however, is that "training order and time seem to influence the magnitude of adaptations only when the training period exceeded 12 weeks (Küüsmaa. 2016; my emphasis) - that's an important observation from which I would like to segue right into the previously announced bottom line discussion of the few potential shortcomings of the study at hand.

Maybe, you don't have to choose between endurance and muscle gains! I am not sure if you looked close enough at Figure 2 to realize that, but the data from the study at hand shows that the PM cardio before weights group (eE+S) made both, the greatest CSA (muscle size) and Texh (exercise till you drop) gains of all groups... yes, I know the difference to the other PM group for CSA was as nonsignificant as the difference between the endurance gains in the AM vs. PM group, but overall that doesn't change the fact that the study at hand suggests that cardio before weights is the better way to go.

Does the study prove that everyone should do cardio first? Wtf!? Obviously not. Why do I even tell you about individuality and the influence of habits and training experience in the bottom line if you still think one study could prove everything you've been successfully for years wrong? Ah, and no, you don't have to start doing cardio and weights on the same day, if doing it on separate days works for you ;-)

Bottom line: I've already hinted at it at the top and in the the last line(s) of the main part of this article: compared to your average "Cardio or weights first?" and / or "AM or PM what's the best time to train?" experiments, the Küüsmaa study provides practically relevant outcome measures, unfortunately, it also provides evidence that its results may be subject specific and may not translate one-to-one from untrained beginners, as they were used in the study at hand to trained (semi-)professionals.

What does that mean? Well, if the influence of the time of the day (AM vs. PM) became significant only in the latter 12 weeks. That would suggest that (a) one's training experience and/or (b) the marginally increased training load determine the importance of AM vs. PM training - whether this relationship is linear, as in "the more training experience you have and / or  the higher your training volume, the more you will benefit from doing your workouts in the PM", however, requires future studies in better-trained individuals and with differences in training volume that go beyond the planned addition of one workout every other week that was used in the study at hand.

With that being said, the take-home messages of the study are still: (1) Do cardio first, if you want to increase your endurance performance, too; (2) Train in the PM (if you can choose freely and are not an extreme morning type) and benefit from a likely increase in size and a non-significant increase in 1RM gains; but (3) don't forget that our response to training may depend on (a) training experience (see previous elaborations), (b) habits and (c) individuality. If you find that doing (1)-(2) sucks for you, just return to what you've previously done | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Burley, Simon D., et al. "The Differential Hormonal Milieu of Morning versus Evening May Have an Impact on Muscle Hypertrophic Potential." PLOS ONE 11.9 (2016): e0161500.
• Küüsmaa, Maria, et al. "Effects of morning vs. evening combined strength and endurance training on physical performance, muscle hypertrophy and serum hormone concentrations." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism ja (2016).

Trying to Shed That Belly? Step Off the Treadmill and Grab Some Weights, Boys & Girls! 19x More Visceral, 1.5x Higher Subcutaneous Fat Loss W/ Resistance Training in Youths

Specifically for teenagers it may be important to work out in both aerobic and anaerobic workouts. So, this would be another reason to favor the combined over the other regimen.

You will probably have overheard the "knowledgeable" trainers at the gym tell their credulous clients, who just told them they "want to lose that belly fat", that the best thing they could do was to "stop spending that much time with weight training" and to do some more (steady state) cardio. Well, in general, there's nothing wrong about steady state cardio - in fact, many studies show that it is superior to resistance training when it comes to "merely" shedding body weight (in the obese). If "weight loss" is still everything you're aspiring, though, you are either new to the SuppVersity or another of the "headline skimmers" who happen to ask questions that are answered not just in the article, but actually in one of the red boxes... ah, I am digressing.

So, what I actually wanted to tell you is that a recent study from the Universities of Ottawa and Calgary (Alberta. 2015), clearly contradicts the average commercial gym chain trainer's recommendation and shows that belly fat loss is better achieved with diet + resistance training.

Are you looking for muscle builders for the year 2015? Find inspiration in these articles:

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

1, 2, or 5 sets per Exercise? What's "best"?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

The subjects of the study were youngsters, 304 (! the high number of participants is a huge plus of the study) 14-18 year-old overweight and obese teenagers (mean body fat almost 50%!), to be specific, who were randomized to four different treatments for 22 weeks:

Table 1: Training progression in the Aerobic
and Resistance group (Alberga. 2015)

• aerobic training (Aerobic), 
• resistance training (Resistance),
• combined aerobic + resistance training (Combined) or 
• non-exercising control group (Control)

Adolescents,... ok, but unless they're too sarcopenic (=suffer from pronounced age-induced muscle loss) to hit the weights, your overweight clients or you, yourself, should be able to follow the same training programs the adolescents did and see similar results if you fully adhere to the following training prescriptions:

• Resistance: The duration of each session progressed to a maximum of about 45 min. Exercises were primarily performed on weight machines, and when required with dumbbells (lateral raise, shrugs, bicep curls, front raise, preacher curl, dumbbell pullover) or by using one's own body weight as resistance (lunges, sit-ups and abdominal crunches).
  

  

  Table 2: Overview of the individual workouts in the Resistance group (Alberga. 2015).

  Participants alternated among exercises from groups A1, A2, B1 and B2 shown in Table 2. Participants were asked to rest for ~ 2 min between sets and were instructed on proper breathing techniques.
• Aerobic: Participants randomized to the aerobic training group underwent a 22-week program (Table 1, left) wherein the exercise intensity and duration increased progressively to a maximum of 45 min per session. Exercise was performed on a cycle ergometer, elliptical or treadmill and participants were free to vary the machine(s) used. Exercise intensity was standardized using heart rate monitors (Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland).
• Combined: This group performed the full exercise programs done by both the aerobic and resistance training groups (Table 1, left + right) during each session for a total of 4 times per week for a maximum of 90 min per session.

Now for simplicity we assume that you'd actually achieve not just similar, but rather the exact same results as the virtual "average" study participant from Alberta's trial. In this case, I bet that most of you would prefer to lose -22.7 cm² subcutaneous body fat with resistance training than -16.2 cm² or -18.7 cm² with either aerobic or combined training. Specifically in view of the fact that only resistant and combined training triggered measurable reductions in visceral body fat, too.

Figure 1: Changes in subcutaneous (SAT) and visceral (VAT) body fat at different regions; L4L5 represents area between 4th and 5th Lumbar vertebrae; * indicates sign. difference to control; # sign. difference to aerobic (Alberga. 2015).

On the other hand, a closer look at the body fat data in Figure 1 also shows that aerobic training is the only form of training that will reduce the deep subcutaneous fat, significantly. Plus: When it's done in combination with resistance training the reductions in subcutaneous fat at L4L5, which represents the area between 4th and 5th Lumbar vertebrae, are still statistically significant and not significantly smaller than those the subjects in the resistance training only arm of the study achieved. 

Figure 2: Changes in Apo-B and Apo-B/A ratio in the three exercise and the control group (Alberta. 2015).

What may eventually tip the scale in favor of the combined training regimen, though, is not the body composition data, but rather the fact that only the combined training routine triggered statistically significant, heart healthy changes in Apolipoprotein B and the Apolipoprotein A/B ratio. After all, the latter has "repeatedly been shown to be a better marker than lipids, lipoproteins and lipid ratios" (Walldius. 2006) - scoring in the top tertile for the ApoB/A ratio, for example has consistently been associated with 89% increased risk of heart disease (Thompson. 2006) .

Figure 3: In their 2005 trial, Tufts scientists were able to show that dietary adherence, not macronutrient comp. or other diet-specific parameters is the main determinant of weight loss (Dansinger. 2005).

You must never forget, however, ... that (a) the beneficial of all four exercise regimen were achieved in the context of an energy deficit of albeit relatively, but consistent -250 kcal/day, that (b) the study had a 4-week lead-in during which all participants that didn't show at least 80% adherence to the dietary + exercise baseline intervention were kicked out, and that (c) subjects who did not attend an average 2.8 out of 3.0 workouts per week were not included in the analysis the data in Figures 1-2 is based.

This obviously leads back to Energy restriction and adherence - the two usual suspects. Without them, any effort to shed the hated body fat must fail. With them, however, only perseverance and consistency may keep from achieving your fat loss goals.

You don't believe that? Well, check out the data in Figure 3. Dansiger and his colleagues from the Tufts University tried to find out which diet, i.e. Ornish, Zone, Weight Watchers, or Atkins die, would cut the most body weight. What they found, though, was that it's always the diet the subjects could adhere to that worked the best. Against that background, it's no wonder that, in the study at hand, only those participants who had more than the minimal 70% adherence to their (aerobic) workout regimen actually lost significant amounts of deep subcutaneous fat tissue.. speaking of adherence, there were no significant differences in adherence between the three training regimen; only the control treatment on the couch obviously had 100% adherence ;-) | Comment on FB!

References:

• Alberga, A. S., et al. "Effects of aerobic and resistance training on abdominal fat, apolipoproteins and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in adolescents with obesity: the HEARTY randomized clinical trial." International journal of obesity (2005) (2015).
• Dansinger, Michael L., et al. "Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial." Jama 293.1 (2005): 43-53.
• Thompson, A., and J. Danesh. "Associations between apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein AI, the apolipoprotein B/AI ratio and coronary heart disease: a literature‐based meta‐analysis of prospective studies." Journal of internal medicine 259.5 (2006): 481-492.
• Walldius, G., and I. Jungner. "The apoB/apoA‐I ratio: a strong, new risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a target for lipid‐lowering therapy–a review of the evidence." Journal of internal medicine 259.5 (2006): 493-519.