The Latest on Combined Training: 15% Increase in Muscle Size in 24 Weeks in Healthy Moderately Active Young Men Regardless of "Cardio First" or "Weights First" Training

If you think even non-significant differences in "lean gains" are significant, "weights first" is for you.

If you are about to embark on a combined strength + endurance training regimen in 2015, it does not matter if you do "cardio first" or "strength first"... well, almost. If you stick to the traditional exercise order, you may gain a non-significant 2% extra on your vastus lateralis (some people would wrongly say "quads") size.

You've read evidence for both, the superiority of "cardio first" and "strength first" on the SuppVersity before and it may in fact be a matter of personal preference, whether you do your cardio or strength training first.

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

Before, After or In-Between?

Exercise Order & Leptin

Cardio First for Anabolism?

Large Muscle Groups First?

How to Combine Cardio & Strength?

Exercise Order Reloaded

The latest study from the University of Jyväskylä and the Edith Cowan University actually appears to confirm just that. In their 24-week study Schumann et al. had 34 physically active and healthy young men performed a combined strength and endurance exercise program with 16 subjects performing the endurance and 18 subjects performing the resistance training exercise first, 2-3 times a week for 24 weeks. Or, more precisely, ...

"[d]uring the first 12 wk, the subjects performed according to their corresponding training group two times 1E+1S or two times 1S+1E per week. The frequency was then increased during the second 12 wk so that two combined training sessions were performed in every first and fourth week and three combined training sessions in every second and third week (i.e., two times 1E+1S or two times 1S+1E or three times 1E+1S or three times 1S+1E, respectively)" (Schumann. 2014)

To reflect tapering before testing, both week 12 and week 24 were conducted by maintaining the training frequency but reducing training volume and intensity by reducing the number of sets, lowering the loads during the strength loading, and reducing both the total duration and time spent at high intensity (i.e., above the anaerobic threshold) during endurance cycling.

Dietary control: To control nutritional intake, food diaries were collected for 3 days including one weekend day at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Subjects received both verbal and written nutritional recommendations and were instructed on how to report nutritional intake in the diaries. The food diaries were analyzed by a nutrient analysis software (Nutri-Flow; Flow-team Oy, Oulu, Finland). Subjects were asked to maintain constant dietary intake throughout the study period. In preparation for all testing, subjects were instructed to consume a light meal 2–3 h before the start of each test and were asked to maintain similar nutritional intake before the measurements at weeks 0, 12, and 24. During each training session, a standardized low dose of glucose was provided at the midpoint of each combined exercise session (after E or S, respectively) whereas water was allowed whenever the subjects felt thirsty.

The intensity of the endurance training was controlled by HR (Polar S410; Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland) associated with subject’s individual aerobic and anaerobic threshold determined during measurements at weeks 0 and 12, respectively. Subjects were instructed to maintain a constant pedaling frequency of approximately 70 rpm during each training session while the magnetic resistance of the ergometer was adjusted to achieve the required exercise intensity.

Concomitant Training: Cardio Before or After Weights? Cardio First Triggers 916% Increase in Growth Hormone. Plus: 7x Higher Testosterone & 3x Higher IGFBP-3 Peaks | read more.

"During weeks 1–7, steady-state cycling of low-to-moderate intensity (below and above the aerobic threshold) was performed, and during the remaining weeks, additional high intensity interval sessions (below and above the anaerobic threshold) were incorporated into the training program. The duration of endurance cycling progressively increased throughout the 12 wk of training from 30 to 50 min. During the second 12-wk period, the major endurance program structure was maintained whereas both training volume and intensity were further increased. The aerobic threshold represented intensities (% HRmax) of 65% T 5% and 67% T 6% in E+S and 68% T 8% and 67% T 6% in S+E at weeks 0 and 12, respectively. The anaerobic threshold represented intensities of 85% T 5% and 86% T 5% in E+S and 82% T 8% and 86% T 5% in S + E at weeks 0 and 12, respectively. The loads used during the strength training were determined by the number of repetitions and execution velocity and progressively increased throughout the two 12-wk periods" (Schumann. 2014)

Exercises for the lower body were bilateral dynamic leg press and bilateral (weeks 1–7 and 13–18) and unilateral (weeks 8–12 and 19–24) dynamic knee extension and flexion. Additional exercises for the upper body included dynamic seated vertical press, lat pulldown, and exercises commonly used to improve trunk stability (crunches, torso rotation, and lower back extension).

• During the first 2 wk, training was performed as a circuit using 2–4 sets of 15–20 repetitions at an intensity of 40%–60% of 1RM. 
• Thereafter, protocols aiming for muscle hypertrophy (2–5 sets of 8–10 repetitions at 80%–85% of 1RM, 1.5- to 2-min interset rest) and maximal strength (2–5 sets of 3–5 repetitions at 85%–95% of 1RM, 3- to 4-min interset rest) and, during the last 2 wk, protocols targeting explosive strength (two sets of 8–10 repetitions at 40% of 1RM with maximal velocity, 3- to 4-min interset rest) were performed. 
• During the second 12-wk period, the major strength program structure was maintained whereas both training volume and frequency were slightly increased to maximize fitness and health outcomes and to avoid a training plateau. 

The overall duration of the strength protocol within each combined training session was 30–50 min, resulting in a total duration of approximately 60–100 min for each combined training session (i.e., E+S and S+E, respectively)

Figure 1: Changes in leg press strength (left), time to exhaustion and aerobic power (right | Schumann. 2014).

Similar to the muscle size, the strength (Figure 1 | left) endurance performance (Figure 1 | right) increased non-significantly more in the "weights first" (S+E) group. In that, it is interesting to observe that the discrepancy between the "endurance first" (E+S) and "weigths first" (S+E) group increase over time. A fact that may suggest that after another four weeks the already measurable difference would have become significant.

Figure 2: Changes in vastus lateralis muscle cross sectional area (CSA, left) and lean mass (right | Schumann. 2014).

This is yet as speculative as the corresponding assumption that the inter-group difference in increase in lean muscle mass and vastus lateralis cross sectional area (CSA) would have achieved statistical significance if the study duration had been longer. On the other hand, that would probably imply that the "strength first group" would have ended up with significantly larger increases in upper body muscle mass.

You know what? Who cares! If there is a bottom line to this article it is the same, I used for previous articles discussing the question whether you "should" do your cardio training before or after your weight training: Do whatever works for you!

Beware of the "training frency" - Chronic Resistance Training Reduces the Anabolic Signaling in Response to Exercise - 12 Days of Detraining Restore It | read more.

And in the unfortunate case that neither "weights first" nor "cardio first" works for you, you can still do cardio and weights on separate occasions. Either on a single day with AM and PM sessions, or on separate days, which is what I would suggest to all of you who are aiming for maximal effects on their physique: Three resistance training workouts and two cardio sessions of which at least one should be a high intensity interval workout on five days of the week. If you stick to a whole-food based higher protein diet (30g of high quality = high EAA protein with every meal), that's going make a difference in the mirror... promise! Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Schumann, Moritz, et al. "Fitness and lean mass increases during combined training independent of loading order." Medicine and science in sports and exercise (2014).

Jump Squats 80% Type-II Fiber Activity, Cold Thermogenesis Better Fasted, Tuned Swiss Ball Crunch, 5-HTP vs. Asthma, HIIT Before Strength & High vs. Low GI Meal Pre Workout

Image 1: Few of the things the average trainee does in places that call themselves "fitness studios" has little to do have will actually promote fitness, as in being athletic. "Mr. check out my biceps", for example would be similarly lost ding this as the sedentary computer nerd "Mr. biceps" loves to laugh about.

I know from time to time I am not 100% in time when it comes to delivering promised articles, but after an exhaustingly hot day, I am pretty much in-time with the 2nd installment of "On Short Notice" for today and the third for this weekend. Since I felt that it looked awkward to have three posts with the "On Short Notice" in front posted one after the other, I did however decide to ditch that (at least for today) and get straight down to ... well, "business" with posts on the revealing type II fiber specific muscle-damage from jump squats, the reason why you better sit in your ice-tub fasted if you want to practice cold thermogenesis, the superiority of Swiss Ball Crunches with resistance bands over the classic ab machine, the surprising anti-asthmatic effects of super high doses of 5-HTP, the way women benefit equally from a progressive strength training regimen with or without HIIT or steady state cardio before the strength workout, and, lastly, the futility of fretting about the acute effects of high vs. low GI meals before a workout and how that relates to childhood obesity. And while I do, believe it or not, have material for at least another episode, I am not going to bore you with even more short news pieces for this weekend. Don't worry ;-)

• Plyometrics for type II muscle fiber(-damage) It probably depends on your individual take on the usefulness of muscle damage, if the headline to this "On Short Notice" got you excited about plyometric training or not. When I am now telling you that the participants in the recently conducted trial by Macaluso et al. were previously untrained (N=8; age = 22 ± 1 years, height = 179.2 ± 6.4 cm, weight = 78.9 ± 5.9 kg) and the creatine kinase levels (a marker of muscle damage and the subsequent leakage of the creatine kinase enzyme into the blood) peaked at only 529.0 ± 317.8 U/L (that's high, but way below the 1,000er range you often see in untrained subjects after nothing but a couple of eccentric biceps curls being performed to failure) after the exercise intervention, I'd guess that most of you will appreciate that the researchers observed significantly more severely damaged type II than type I fibers (on average 85% vs. 27% of the respective fiber type).

  

  Image 2: The effect of plyomtetrics on your fitness & physique is still  underrated by the most fitness enthusiasts; and that despite the facts that plyos are the bread and butter of many athletes whose physical feats they are admiring.

  If we now make the reasonable assumption that the ~60% higher rate of muscle damage in both the glycolytic and oxidative subtypes of the type II fibers was indicative of the fact that they were the ones which shouldered the main workload of the 10 x 10 jump squat regimen the young men had to perform, this is unquestionable good news for everyone trying to get big and buffed. After all, these fibers, which are also known as type IIa (86% severely damaged) and type IIx fibers (84.% severely damaged vs. just 27% of type I fibers), are the ones that allow bodybuilders to get lean and muscular - not just one or the other... if that got you intrigued about what plyometrics are and if there is more research on it, I suggest you take a(nother) look at my previous posts on "ploys", such as "Building the Jack-of-All-Traits Legs Workout With Squats, Jump Squats and Body Weight Plyometrics?" or even the "Turbo-Fire vs. Insanity ShootOut" from one of the previous installments of "On Short Notice".
• Cold thermogenesis is not for everyone, but if it works for you, better do it fasted! That the amount and in many cases even the presence of the metabolically active brown adipose tissue and with it the thermogenic response to cold exposure is a very individual thing, is something you, as a diligent SuppVersity student will be aware of after all you have already read my previous post of the matter (cf. "Cold Thermogenesis vs. Ephedra").

  

  Figure 1: Cold thermogenesis in postprandial (PP) vs. fasted state (FF); dark areas indicate high 18F-FDG uptake (=high metabolic activity; Vrieze. 2012)

  Since there are still way too many people who actually seem to believe that sitting in a cold bathtub for a couple of minutes everyday would be all it takes to get you ripped and jacked, I thought it prudent to give them the chance to make it actually work and advice them to do it fasted! According to a recently published study from the Department of Internal Medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, in the Netherlands (Vrieze. 2012), the metabolic activity of the brown fat in all 6/10 of the 10 healthy, lean male volunteers (18-32 y; body mass index, 20-24 kg/m²) who participated in the study was about twice as high when they sat in a room which was cooled down to 16-18°C for 2h fasted (13.1 g/mL glucose uptake) vs. in the postprandial state (6.8 g/mL).
  Aside from the usual non-responders (40%) and the huge heterogenity with respect to the thermogenic response (6.1 - 27.6g/L), which are typical for these experiments there is a similarly large intra-individual difference with respect to the increase in BAT activity in the fasted state with the highest responder going from 11g/L in the post-prandial to 27.6g/L in the fasted state and the "fasting non responder" with a statistically non-existent (the term "non-significant" would not be bold enough ;-) "increase" in cold induced thermogenesis from 5g/L to 6g/L.

• 

  Video 1 (askthetrainer.com): The Swiss ball crunch with resistance bands takes some "tweaking" to be done correctly. After all you usually don't have the equipment set up in the way you would need it at your gym (click image to watch).

  Swiss ball crunch with resistance bands effective and saver than ab machine While I am not sure how "effective" the ab-machine in the study by Sundstrup et al. actually was, I can tell you that done with resistance bands the allegedly hilariously looking swiss ball crunch is not just at least as effective in recruiting the musculature of the rectus abdominus (104±3.8 vs 84±3.8% nEMG, respectively) as one of those machines, where your legs are locked in a way that the rectus femoris will do take do way too much of the work (2x more activity than in the swiss ball crunch with resistance bands) and you thus set yourself up for future lower back (=lumbar pain).
  Against that background and in view of the fact that Sundstrup et al. found that "both men and women, younger and elderly, and individuals with and without pain benefitted equally from the exercises" (Sundstrup. 2012), it is probably well worth taking the 2-3 min to get the equipment in position and do 3-4 sets of this unquestionably unconventional exercise (check out the SuppVersity EMG Series and my post on "Integrated Core Exercises For 6-Pack Abs" for additional ab exercises).
• 

  A couple of statistics on the current asthma rates in the US
  

  • asthmatic adults: 18.7 million (8.2%)
  • asthmatic children: 7.0 million (9.4%)

  In 2010, most U.S. children aged 17 years and under had excellent or very good health (82%). However, 8% of children had no health insurance coverage, and 5% of children had no usual place of health care. Seven percent of children had unmet dental need because their families could not afford dental care. Fourteen percent of children had ever been diagnosed with asthma. An estimated 8% of children aged 3–17 years had a learning disability, and an estimated 8% of children had ADHD. (Bloom. 2011; based on data from 2010)
  5-HTP switches allergic asthma off No good news for the average Olympian athlete who would then lose his script for his beta-agonists (clenbuterol & co, see also SuppVersity Facebook news from Aug 01, 2012), but probably something those of you who suffer from allergic rhinitis or full-blown asthma will appreciate: The administration of 5-hydroxy-tryptophan an orally available precursor to serotonin over the course of  led to a profound reduction (70-90%!) reduction in allergic lung inflammation in a rodent model (Abdala-Valencia. 2012). While the supplement left all sorts of side-effect related parameters unchanged and did not lead to weight gain, which is an often touted side effect of SSRIs - mostly unjustly, by the way! - the hilariously high dosage of 5mg 5-HTP per kg body weight the rodents received did reduce the allergen-induced transglutaminase 2 (TG2) expression, the migration of immune cells into the lung tissue, the local synthesis of serotonin and the subsequent serotonylation of proteins (serotonin conjugation of proteins) which is a key feature of allergic asthma.
  Regardless of the fact that Abdala-Valencia explicitly point out that these effects "occured without systemic increases in serotonin" (Abdala-Valencia. 2012), which could have led to vasoconstriction and other negative side-effects, I strongly caution against the ingestion of a whole bottle of 5-HTP tabs per day... when the researchers from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine publish a follow up study on humans, I'll let you know, though - in view of the ever-increasing asthma (see infobox on the right) research in this area could not just offer a valuable new treatment strategy, but also insights into the underlying reasons of this epidemic.
• Young women can combine strength training with either steady state or HIIT and still make progress - Somewhat related to my post earlier this week on doing cardio before instead of after your strength workout are the results of a recent study by Silva et al. who found that young women (age ~23y) make identical strength gains, regardless of whether and which type (HIIT sprinting or steady state cardio on the cycle ergometer or classic jogging) they perform before with their twice a week full-body training (Silva. 2012). Just as in the Di Blasio study, the "cardio" sessions, which were performed in a 1 min all-out vs. 1 min active recovery (HIIT) or 95% of the ventilatory threshold (SST) fashion for 20-30min (progressing from 20-30 over the course of the 11 weeks), were performed before the weight training (note: changes in body composition were not evaluated in detail, but I would be very surprised, if the concomitant training regimen, and in that specifically the HIIT protocol, did not outperform the resistance training only protocol in this respect).

  

  Image 3 (rippedfitness.com): You will certainly remember Wednesday's news on doing cardio before weights, well, here you have more evidence that even doing 20-30 min of HIIT won't hamper the gains of fit female beginners on a twice a week full-body regimen with built-in progression regimen - neither will steady state cardio "in the zone", by the way.

  If you are a young, fit woman (or man) without years of competitive athletics under your belt and don't train all too often (~2-3 times per week), it does thus obviously not harm your strength gains on a classic strength training program with built in linear progression from 15-18RM to 8-10RM, if you concomitantly work on your conditioning - whether the results would be identical if the subjects were not just fit and healthy but had been training for years and were working out 5x instead of 2x a week, is yet questionable. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that seasoned athletes (and this goes out to the gentlemen, in particular) will lose muscle and ruin their strength gains, whenever they move further than the bench to the squat rack - it's all a matter of total volume and running out of puff due to bad conditioning can just as well keep you from pulling those additional 10kg off the floor as the exhaustion from doing too much cardio.
  This, by the way, brings me back to the notion of "fitness" vs. "being fit", I alluded to in the caption of image 1, already: If you want to exploit the 100 year credit your genes have granted you (see "Exercise for Life Extension" in today's first installment of "On Short Notice"), you better focus on "being fit". Try different things and don't get stuck in a rut.
• High GI, low GI, ... f*** GI! When you, a healthy, more or less well-conditioned individual are about to engage in a high intensity exercise protocol that simulates a football match (bouts of walking (31-39 s), jogging (41-46 s), cruising (41-45 s), sprinting (16-21 s) and standing), it make absolutely no difference whether you ingest a high (=80) or low (=44) pre-workout meal (total energy=377 kcal; CHO=79 g; Fat=3 g; Protein=13 g) 3.5h before your workout (Hulton. 2012).

  

  Image 4: Add Lucozade + Akash rice for high GI (80) or apple juice and basmati for low GI (44) and you have two isocaloric test pre-workout meals

  That's at least what the results of a recent study by Hulton et al. which did not find any differences in blood glucose, fatty acids (FA), glycerol, β-hydroxybutyrate, lactate and insulin (assessed before, during, and after the exercise bout), rates of CHO and fat oxidation (determined at 4 time points during the protocol) or 1 km time trial performance. It should be mentioned, though, that this was not a liquid meal, but consisted of either Lucozade + akash rice (high GI) or apple juice + basmati rice (low GI) with an identical chicken breast + tomato sauce "base" and identical macro-nutrient and calorie content.
  That the long-term consequences on your body composition may still be different is a different cattle of fish though and how "beneficial" liquid sugar, ah... I mean energy drinks, such as Lucozade are is something at least those of you who read my "Fat Content Per Energy Drink 0g, Body Fat Gain Per Energy Drink 18g!" post from June 30, 2012. Whether apple juice is much better is still debatable, though. Wojcicki & Heyman, for example, argue (finally, as I would like to add) in their latest paper that "excessive fruit juice consumption is associated with increased risk for obesity" and the ingestion of "sucrose [...]without the corresponding fiber, as is commonly present in fruit juice, is associated with the metabolic syndrome, liver injury, and obesity". Reason enough for the two pediatrics from the University of California to recommend that the "US Department of Agriculture's Child and Adult Food Care Program, which manages the meal patterns in childcare centers such as Head Start, promote the elimination of fruit juice in favor of whole fruit for children." (Wojcicki. 2012)

Before I eventually call it a week, I would like to remind everyone of the daily mini-news on the SuppVersity Facebook wall. Only few of them will also make it into the "On Short Notice" column (actually the "Exercise for Life Extension" in today's first installment was an exception), so that even the few of you who don't suffer acute short news withdrawal symptoms, may want to stop by from time to time ;-)

References

• Abdala-Valencia H, Berdnikovs S, McCary CA, Urick D, Mahadevia R, Marchese ME, Swartz K, Wright L, Mutlu GM, Cook-Mills JM. Inhibition of Allergic Inflammation  by Supplementation with 5-hydroxytryptophan. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2012 Jul 27.  
• Bloom B, Cohen RA, Freeman G. Division of Health Interview Statistics Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2010. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, Maryland December 2011. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2012–1578.
• Hulton AT, Gregson W, Maclaren D, Doran DA. Effects of GI Meals on Intermittent Exercise. Int J Sports Med. 2012 Jun 15.
• Macaluso F, Isaacs AW, Myburgh KH. Preferential Type II Muscle Fiber Damage From Plyometric Exercise. J Athl Train. 2012;47(4):414-20.
• Silva RF, Cadore EL, Kothe G, Guedes M, Alberton CL, Pinto SS, Pinto RS, Trindade G, Kruel LF. Concurrent training with different aerobic exercises. Int J Sports Med. 2012 Aug;33(8):627-34. Epub 2012 May 4.
• Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Andersen CH, Jay K, Andersen LL. Swiss ball abdominal crunch with added elastic resistance is an effective alternative to training machines. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Aug;7(4):372-80.
• Vrieze A, Schopman JE, Admiraal WM, Soeters MR, Nieuwdorp M, Verberne HJ, Holleman F. Fasting and Postprandial Activity of Brown Adipose Tissue in Healthy Men. J Nucl Med. 2012 Jul 31. 
• Wojcicki JM, Heyman MB. Reducing childhood obesity by eliminating 100% fruit juice. Am J Public Health. 2012 Sep;102(9):1630-3. Epub 2012 Jul 19.

Before, After or In-Between? Study Puts Another '?' Behind the Widely Accepted 'Cardio After Weights' Paradigm.

Image 1 (rippedfitness.com): As of late everyone picks on gals who believe they would get bulky, when they train with weights... I wonder, when people finally start picking on big, but chubby guys who still try to justify their laziness with the "conditioning work induces muscle loss" myth, when they are guzzling their sugary weight gainers.

I know that I am probably one of the few people with a bias towards lifting weight and high intensity interval training who does not discard the merits of steady state aerobics (LISS) as a third pillar of the exercise part of physical culture. In that I am however well aware that we all have only so much time to spare for exercise - although I believe each and everyone of us would be able to carve out another hour everyday, if we just streamlined our schedules and threw out some useless Internet surfing or TV watching, but this is another issue... it may thus be necessary or at least desirable for many of us, if we could combine strength and LISS sessions into a single session. Personally, I have been doing that for years and after some initial experimentation I have, for the most time, relied on the broscientific recommendation to do LISS after workouts (when I could not do it separately).

Cardio? Ok... but when? Before, after or in-between?

The recent publication of a study on the post-exercise response to concurrent endurance and resistance training published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine does yet make me question if there may not be better ways to combine weight lifting and light intensity steady state cardio training. To elicit whether you'd better walk on the treadmill at 60% of your HRmax before or after your weight lifting workout and whether there may not be an even better third protocol that would involve jumping back ond forth from the treadmill to the bench Andrea Di Blasio and her colleagues from the G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara in Italy recruited 13 young previously untrained women (mean age 24.40y; BMI 21.28 kg/m²).

Figure 1: Outline of the 3 training protocols that were performed by all subjects (Di Blasio. 2012)

On three different occasions, each of the participants, who underwent an extensive initial fitness test and had been required to follow identical nutrition protocols before each of the three testing sessions, performed all three of the endurance / resistance training protocols, i.e.

• ERT - 30 min endurance training, first + 3x resistance training circuit*, 2nd
• RET - 3x resistance training circuit, first + 30min endurance training, 2nd
• AERT - [10min endurance training + 1x resistance training circuit] x3

note: the circuit training was performed in sissy mode, i.e. at 55% of the 1RM because "it allows working for 30-second consecutively" (Di Blasio. 2012)

...in random order. Resting energy expenditure, VO2, ventialtion, respiratory frequency, proportion of oxygen in the expired air were collected for 30 minutes via continuous indirect calorimetry (FitMate Pro, Cosmed, Roma, Italy) with the subjects in total rest and in a reclined position in a standardized and quiet room (please keep that in mind! We are NOT looking at intra-exercise energy expenditure, but what happens, when you head home or shower!) according to a standardized experimentally validated protocol (Compher. 2006).

Conventional wisdom fails, both alternatives useful - pick whatever suits your goals

The results, of this trial were - to say the least - more than surprising. Or ... well, honestly they were not. If you take a closer look at the plotted data in figure 2, you will realize that the RPE value, i.e. the rate of perceived exertion, Di Blasio et al. had elucidated visual analogue scale questionnaires, as well as the cardiovascular turned out to be the crucial parameters:

Figure 2: Resting energy expenditure (total and rel. to RPE, left) and changes in oxgyen consumption (VO2), ventilation and oxygen fraction in exhaled air relative to mean changes after ERT, RET and AERT training (based on Di Blasio. 2012)

Interestingly, the long-stading"resistance training first" principle (RET) turned out to be the least useful protocol current experimental setting (see implications, below). Rather, the study found

"[...] that AERT, compared with the other protocols, induced a higher metabolic rate by in- creasing EE, VO2, Ve and RPE during recovery from training, and independently of their pre-test values." (Di Blasio. 2012)

This is an interesting result, because it suggests that the hitherto certainly unappreciated alternation of strength and LISS training within one exercise session appears to elicit those post-exercise increases in EE, VO2 and ventilation, that are necessary to support the re-synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) / creatine phosphate (PCr), to replenish glycogen and oxygen stores, to propel lactate removal and circulation (Børsheim. 2003).

It stands do reason that all these processes are energy intensive. To (1) quantify all of them in kcal (I wonder how long you could survive if you ate kcal instead of foods and how your mitochondria would function if they burned kcal instead of nutrients) and (2) subsume them under the misleading term  "excess post-exercise oxygen consumption" (EPOC) and judge the "optimal" training regimen by its effect on EPOC is yet short-sighted, not just because "EPOC comprises only 6-15% of the net total oxygen cost of the exercise" (LaForgia. 2006), but also because this practice implies that the total or relative (as fat) amount of energy you expend in the immediate vicinity of  a workout was the main determinant of its effects on your metabolic health and physique.

F*** EPOC, the fat burning zone and the calories in vs. calories out hypothesis!

Figure 3: Figure 3: Changes of key enzymes envolved in the phosphorylation of key enzymes in the protein synthetic cascade in response to endurance (E) and combined endurance and resistance (E+R) training (calculated based on Sahlin. 2011; originally posted in "Resistance After Endurance Training Increases Mitochondrial Biogenesis & Protein Synthesis and Ramps Up Fat Metabolism").

That the results of the study at hand do yet still speak in favor of the mixed-mode AERT protocol - at least as long as your main intention is to perform a relatively light full-body conditioning workout at least 3x times a week - is thus not that it yielded the highest post-exercise energy expenditure, but that it did that at the (relatively) lowest rate of perceived exertion (see figure 2, left) and provided the greatest VO2 stimulus to initiate those beneficial metabolic adaptation which won't just reduce the huffing and puffing on subsequent training sessions, but will also help you build a bigger metabolic engine, that's going to keep you lean and help you shed more fat in the future. Apropos "metabolic engine", those of you who have been around for more than a couple of weeks, should actually remember my a post from November 15, 2011, in which I already discussed that adding strength to endurance training can turn even a 60-min cycling workout into a tree-trunk leg builder (see figure 3).

In conjunction with the study at hand, which is the first I know of that compared "cardio first", "cardio second" and "cardio in-between", directly, the results of the 2011 Sahlin study, which employed a true hypertrophy specific pyramid-style leg training after 60min of cycling (without a "hypertrophy first" control, though) do suggest that it may be about time to re-evaluate the bro-scientific standard protocol of "strength, first", "cardio, second" without the long overcome mantra of "you got to work out in the fat burning zone" in the back of your head.

Interestingly, enough, Yardley et al. have only recently reported that "doing cardio first" can make type I diabetics go hypo (Yardley. 2012). Though this may sound scary at first, it would suggest that, in healthy people, the expression of the energy sensor AMPK, as well as the the mitochondria building, fat browning protein PGC-alpha (cf. "If a High Fat Diet was a Pill, the Lay Press Would Celebrate it as Exercise in a Pill!") is probably higher and all the beneficial downstream effects on metabolic health and body composition more pronounced (as always you can of course also argue otherwise - if you want to get hightened leptin levels down, you'd better do it the exact other way around; cf. "Greater Reduction in Leptin With Cardio After Weights").

Suggestion for combining strength and cardio training in one session for,...

• strength - 15 min LISS before*
• hypertrophy - max. 25 min LISS before*
• fat loss (classic) - max. 40min LISS before
• fat loss (alternative) - 10min HIIT + 5min LISS + body part 1, 10min HIIT + 5min LISS + body part 2

* if you feel like it add a 10min HIIT session to the end

You may certainly argue that you would gain more strength without doing any cardio... still, the average O-lifting heavy weight look is probably not what many of you are training for, right? And when you think about it from a physiological perspective it would only appear logical that you better do your cardio first, lift second and add a ~5min cool-down to leave the gym before your protein synthesis peaks / begins to decline, than experience just that during a 45min LISS session after your workouts.

In this respect, even the "equipment hopping" of the AERT sessions, may have it's merit for advanced trainees. While it may certainly not be optimal to "bulk", switching back and forth from cardio to strength training could be a viable alternative for people whose main goal is to maintain the muscle mass while improving their conditioning - particularly when it is combined with short HIIT sessions 5-10min, followed by a short cool-down done twice before say chest and arms (e.g. HIIT > Chest > HIIT > Arms).

References:

• Børsheim E, Bahr R. Effect of exercise intensity, duration and mode on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Sports Med. 2003;33(14):1037-60.
• Compher C, Frankenfield D, Keim N, Roth-Yousey L; Evidence Analysis Working Group. Best practice methods to apply to measurement of resting metabolic rate in adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006 Jun;106(6):881-903.
• Di Blasio A, Gemello E, Di Iorio A, Di Giacinto G, Celso T, Di Renzo D, Sablone A., Ripari P. Order effects of concurrent endurance and resistance training on post-exercise response of non-trained women. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2012 Aug; 11:393-39.
• LaForgia J, Withers RT, Gore CJ. Effects of exercise intensity and duration on the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. J Sports Sci. 2006 Dec;24(12):1247-64. 

Concomitant Training: Cardio Before or After Weights? Cardio First Triggers 916% Increase in Growth Hormone. Plus: 7x Higher Testosterone & 3x Higher IGFBP-3 Peaks

Run first, lift second to end your workouts on an anabolic tune.

I know, judging the anabolic effects of exercise by the post-exercise testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone and IGFBP-3 response is controversial. On the other hand, Claudio Rosa and his colleagues from the University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro are right, when they argue that "concurrent training (CT),  is  an  effective strategy to improve both cardiorespiratory and neuromuscular functions (26), as well to induce a high-energy expenditure (2, 21)" (Rosa. 2014) that comes with one significant disadvantage; a disadvantage scientists have labeled stimulus interference.

A reduction / reduced increase of testosterone and or IGF, of which Rosa et al. state that they are the "most important  anabolic  hormonal  indicators  associated  with  muscle  hypertrophy" would be one of the many potential reasons for said interference.

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

Study Proves: Overtraining Exists

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

Accordingly, the aim of the Portuguese scientists was to investigate and compare the hormonal responses (testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone, and IGFBP-3) to different intra-session endurance and strength training order in concurrently trained men.

Figure 1: Anaerobic and aerobic performance markers of the study participants (Rosa. 2014).

As the data in Figure 1 goes to show you, the trainees were no absolute noobs. In addition, all participants had been physically active and had engaged in concomitant training at least 3 times a week, during the previous 12 months.

The protocol of the strength training sessions was designed in order to consider an appropriate and efficient manipulation of several training variables which have been associated in the literature with higher energy expenditure during and after the exercise(s), namely: multiple sets; exercises recruiting large-muscle mass; movement speed; number of repetitions ; the intensity and volume of the workload; resting time between sets ; and the execution order of the resistance exercises.

If you feel hypo after the workouts, that's the way to go... well, at least if you want to maximize your growth hormone production. Hypoglycemia, which is characterized by low blood sugar levels, is after all a potent stimulus to secretion of growth hormone (Roth. 1963). Needless to say that your blood glucose levels will be lower if you do cardio first, if this is going to be more anabolic is a whole different question, though.

The endurance training exercise was performed on a treadmill. The training included 32 minutes of intermittent exercise, with 2 minutes at a speed corresponding to a blood lactate concentration of 2 mmol/L, alternating with 1 minute at a speed corresponding to a blood lactate concentration of 4mmol • L/1 (compare the actual running velocities in Figure 1).

Suggested read: "Don't Want to Sacrifice Your Strength on the Altar of Cardio Training? Creatine Monohydrate to the Rescue! Differential Effects on HIIT / Steady State, Legs / Chest" | read more

"The strength training included three sets of 10 repetitions with 70% of 1RM for the following exercises: squat (SQ), bench press (BP), leg press (LP) and front lat pull down (FLPD). Moreover, subjects were also required to perform three sets of 30 repetitions of the abdominal crunch (AC) and lumbar extension (LE) exercise with their own body weight.All sets of an exercise were completed before changing exercise. The ST exercises always followed this order: SQ, BP, LP, AC, FLPD, and LE. A rest interval of 1 minute was maintained between sets. A metronome (Quartz, São Paulo, Brazil) was set used at a cadence of 40 beats per minute in order to establish a rate of 20 exercise repetitions per minute." (Rosa. 2014)

If you imagine the resulting training program which was performed either with the endurance (ES) or the strength (SE) component first, you will realize that the result (specifically SE) is not too far off the average concomitant training regimen of the Average Joes and Janes at your gym.

ES = Endurance first, to maximize testosterone and IGFB-3? 

If you take a look at the outcome values, you will realize that there were significant effects for the main effect of time in the testosterone (p = 0.017) and growth hormone concentrations (p < 0.001), as well as a significant interaction between exercise order groups and time in the IGFBP-3 levels (p = 0.022).

Figure 2: Changes (pre vs. post exercise; %) in testosterone, cortisol, IGFBP-3 & GH (Rosa. 2014)

There were no significant interaction or main effects in the cortisol concentration (p > 0.05) or effects due to the exercise order (p > 0.05). Still, the testosterone and IGFBP-3 concentrations significantly increased in the ES group after the exercise trainings (57.7 ± 35.1%,  p  = 0.013 and 17.0 ±
15.5%, p = 0.032, respectively), only. In the "endurance second" (SE) group  the IGFB-3 levels actually decreased.

If you cannot decide, whether you want to do it before or after, just do your cardio in-between | learn more

Bottom line: If we assume that the increase in testosterone and IGFB-3 are relevant, we would be ill-advised to follow the standard practice and perform our resistance training first. If on the other hand you follow my advice and try both and pick the one you feel works best for you, I suppose most of you will end up with the standard regimen. I mean, who wants to squat after 30 minutes on the treadmill? Apropos, you remember my previous article about doing cardio in-between, ha? Why don't you try this as well? Maybe it's - as so often - the golden middle-way that provides optimal results? What? Oh, yeah. Actually it'd probably be best if you had 2 cardio and 3 strength training days, but I know that this does not fit everyones schedule.

Now, please keep in mind that the evidence for immediate benefits from elevated post-workout testosterone, GH and IGF is marginal if not non-existent. The next logical step would be a 12-week study to compare the long-term effects ... obviously, we don't have that study, yet, but the SuppVersity is the place to go if you want to be notified, when it's been conducted ;)

Reference:

• Rosa C, Vilaça-Alves J, Fernandes HM, Saavedra FJ, Pinto RS, Machado Dos Reis V. "Order effects of combined strength and endurance training on testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone and IGFBP-3 in concurrent-trained men". J Strength Cond Res. (2014): Jul 15 Ahead of Print. 
• Roth, Jesse, et al. "Hypoglycemia: a potent stimulus to secretion of growth hormone." Science 140.3570 (1963): 987-988.

Exercise Order Reloaded: Testosterone Advantage of Doing Weights First Does Not Persist over 24 Week Study Period ➲ Strength Gains Identical, But GH Difference is Suspicious

Could the "wrong" exercise order be holding you back?

If you take a look at the SuppVersity articles with the keyword "exercise order" (click here to do that now), you will probably find "good" arguments for both: Doing cardio before and  doing cardio after weights - this begs the question, whether it is merely a question of personal preference, doesn't it?

I, for my part, have done both in the past and didn't notice much of a difference. For mere time reasons I do my cardio completely separate from my workouts, but in general, I would probably do longer 20min+ low intensity steady state cardio after the workouts. Not the least for the beneficial effects of very low intensity exercise on both metabolic and performance markers of recovery (Corder. 2000).

You can learn more about workout routines at the SuppVersity

What's the Right Training 4 You?

Hypertrophy Blueprints

Fat Loss Support Blueprint

Strength Training Blueprints

Study Proves: Overtraining Exists

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

If we take a look a the results of a recent study by Moritz Schumann et al., these acute recovery effects may yet have about as little effect on the real-world outcome of your training sessions as the temporary reduction in testosterone the researchers from the Public University of Navarra, the Edith Cowan University and the University of Connecticut observed in those 12 of their ca. 30 years old, ca. 179 cm tall and ca. 79 kg heavy male, recreationally active study participants who had been randomized to the "cardio before weights" (E + S: endurance before strength training) group. It goes without saying that the exercise prescriptions for the E+S and S+E groups were identical:

Additional read: "Cardio&Strength What Do I Do First?" Plus: Could the Answer Be Sex-Specific?" | more

"During the first 12 weeks of training, the subjects per formed according to their corresponding training group either 2x[1E + 1S] or 2x[1S + 1E] per week.

During the second 12 weeks, the frequency was increased so that two combined training sessions were performed in every 1st and 4th week and three combined training sessions in every 2nd and 3rd week (i.e., 2x[1E + 1S] or 2x[1S + 1E] or 3x [1E + 1S] or 3x[1S + 1E], respectively). " (Schumann. 2014)

For the "E" in "E + S", the subjects cycled on a regular ergometer at an intensity that was controlled by heart rate zones determined from subjects’ individual aerobic and anaerobic threshold obtained during the baseline measurement at week 0 and 24. 

Figure 1: Overview of the 24-week study protocol (Schumann. 2014)

They were asked to maintain a constant pedaling frequency at about 70–80 rpm during each training session, while the magnetic resistance of the ergometer was used to achieve the prescribed cycling intensity:

"The endurance program consisted of both steady-state and interval exercise sessions while the intensity was progressively increased from low (below the aerobic threshold) to high (above the anaerobic threshold) throughout both 12-week periods." (Schumann. 2014)

If you add the 30-50 minutes it took the subjects to complete the periodized (circuit training 2-4 sets of all exercises at 15-20 reps  40-60% in week 1-2; 2-5 sets of 8-10 reps @80-85% during the rest of the study) strength training routine, that consisted of exercises for the lower and upper body, i.e.

• lower body -bilateral dynamic leg press, as well as both bilateral (weeks 1–7 and 13–18) and unilateral (weeks 8–12 and 19–24) dynamic knee extension and flexion -
• upper body - vertical shoulder press and lat pull down, as well as exercises commonly used to improve trunk stability -,

to the 30–50 min of cardio the subjects performed on each of their three weekly workouts, the total duration of the workouts would be 60–100 min for each combined training session.

Post workout testosterone = statistically significant, practically irrelevant difference

In view of the fact that the total training time, the exercises and the workout frequency were identical, the previously mentioned inter-group differences in post-workout testosterone are attributable to the exercise order - irrespective of whether they were mediated by a reduced performance in the strength training session or whatever crazy counter-evidence you were just about to mention in the comments ;-)

Figure 2: Serum testosterone concentrations during loading and recovery before (a) and after (b) the combined
training (left); changes in basal serum markers after 24 weeks of training (right; Schumann. 2014).

If you take a closer look at Figure 2, you will also notice that the initial difference in post-workout testosterone levels (left) is lost over the course of the 24-week study period. Against that background and in view of the inter-mediate increase in testosterone in the E+S vs. S+E group, it is not surprising that the relevant outcomes, i.e. the 1-RM, the increase in maximal voluntary contractile force (MVC) and the gain in aerobic power didn't differ between the S+E vs. E+S groups.

Figure 3: Rel. change in performance parameters within the 24 week study period (left); acute responses and recovery of maximal isometric leg press force (MVcmax) before (a) and after (b) the combined training (right; Schumann. 2014).

What is interesting though and may even be interpreted as evidence to support my previous suggestion to do "cardio after weight" for its beneficial effects on recovery is the slightly more pronounced decrease in creatine kinase in the S+E group (see Figure 3). Even if we take into consideration that CK is not the reliable marker of muscle damage everyone says it was (Chrismas. 2014), the relative CK values may still serve as a proxy of recovery, which could be enhanced with cardio after weights.

The GH response would also speak in favor of "weights first": With post-workout GH levels of 54.4 vs. 13.7 in week 1 and 56.7 vs. 19.1 mIU/l in week 24, the difference between the groups is huge and could be associated with an increased consumption of fatty acids post-workout, as well as greater increases in muscle fiber size as it was observed by West et al. (2012) in their seminal paper on the correlations between exer- cise induced changes in GH, testosterone, cortisol & co on the one, and size and strength gains, on the other hand.

Bottom line: If the study at hand was able to prove one thing, it would be be the non-significance and absurdity of the never-ending debate about "cardio before or after weights". While you may argue that doing light intensity cardio on your off-days has the "activity on almost 7 days of the weeks health advantage", there really isn't a reasonable argument why you would prefer doing it before or after your strength training sessions that would apply to everyone.

Irrespective of the potential GH advantage, I discussed in the box to the right, my suggestion would thus be: If you cannot or don't want to separate cardio and strength training, listen to my body and do whatever you feel suits you better.

If that's cardio before weights and thus not what I prefer, personally, that's perfectly fine - I mean, if I meet someone to talk to while doing cardio, I will also prepone my cardio workout and hit the weights afterwards ;-)

Reference:

• Chrismas, Bryna CR, et al. "Reproducibility of creatine kinase: how useful is this measurement tool?." International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings. Vol. 10. No. 1. 2014.
• Corder, Keith P., et al. "Effects of active and passive recovery conditions on blood lactate, rating of perceived exertion, and performance during resistance exercise." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 14.2 (2000): 151-156.
• Schumann, Moritz, et al. "The order effect of combined endurance and strength loadings on force and hormone responses: effects of prolonged training." European journal of applied physiology (2014).
• West, Daniel WD, and Stuart M. Phillips. "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training." European journal of applied physiology 112.7 (2012): 2693-2702.

Cardio & Strength Training in a Single Workout: "What Do I Do First?" Plus: Could the Answer Be Sex-Specific?

"Men are different women, too..." We all know that, but can we still train together or will women have to do cardio first, while men would be better off starting out lifting weights?

This is not the first and certainly not the last article on what should come first, if you actually have to or want to do endurance and resistance training in single workout session. Today's SuppVersity article is however the one on the study with the most detailed evaluation of the differential effects of "endurance vs. resistance training first" on the endocrine response, neuromascular fatique and power in men and women, I have seen in a while. The pertinent paper is titled "Acute Hormonal and Force Responses to Combined Strength and Endurance Loadings in Men and Women: The 'Order Effect'" and has been written by Ritva S. Taipale and Keijo Häkkinen from the Department of Biology of Physical Activity at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland (Taipale. 2013).

60 minutes LISS + 45 min leg circuit or vice versa - what's best?

The intention of the researchers was to "to examine the acute exercise induced serum hormone and neuromuscular responses and the time course of changes during recovery in response to a combined strength and endurance training session in recreationally endurance trained male and female runners and whether this response would differ if the participants started their workout with a ...

• steady state running exercise at an intensity between each subject’s previously determined individual lactate threshold (LT) and respiratory compensation threshold (RCT) for 60 minutes, or 

• a circuit leg workout with 2 minutes rest between sets that implemented both maximal and explosive strength exercises at loads of 70–85% of the individual 1RM for three sets of 5–8 repetitions, with the final repetition of each set being performed to "near failure" and explosive strength exercises of 8-10reps at a maximal velocity using only 30-40& of the 1EM load on the bilateral leg press (3 sets maximal and 3 sets explosive), the squat (3 sets maximal), loaded squat jumps (3 sets explosive), and calf raises (2 sets maximal).

In short, the question the researchers had in mind when they came up with the research design was: "What's the best way to combine 60min of steady state cardio and an intense 45min leg routine into a single workout"?

Figure 1: Change in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in men (left) and women (right) during, immediately after and in the recovery period after the endurance first (ES) and strength first (SE) workouts (Taipale. 2013)

As the data in figure 1 goes to show you, the results were not exactly flattering to the strong sex (=us men), whose absolute maximal bilateral isometric (MVC) strength in the endurance first (ES) trial decreased significantly (28%, p = 0.002) following the 60 minutes of jogging (E), while it remained stable in the 10 female study participants. Luckily, there was still a follow up after which we were back on par (-22% in men and -21% in women).

"The relative loading-induced decreases (D%) in strength between ES and SE differed significantly at mid in men (p<0.001). The relative decreases (D%) in strength in men and women were similar at MID; however, at post, a significant difference between ES men and ES women was observed. The absolute rate of force development (RFD) decreased during both loadings in ES and SE men (at post -19%, p< 0.001 and -22%, p = 0.003, respectively)." (Taipale. 2013)

So once again, the "fairer sex" had an "unfair" advantage, as the rate of force development of the women did not decrease significantly after either the ES or the SE trial. However, it was on ony after the "endurance first" (ES) trial that this effect reached statistical significance.

Level playing field? You must be kiddin' the girls are on dope... ah estrogen ;-)

A similar advantage was observed for the recovery of the initially equally decreased maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) in men and women. Contrary to the ladies who bounced back to normal within the first 24 hours, the MVC of the men remained significantly below the baseline levels in both the strength- (ES) and endurance first (ES) arms of the study 24 h after the endurance first trial (-14% and -15%, respectively) and was still below baseline 48 h post (p < 0.01  -11%).

Figure 2: Endocrine response to endurance (ES) or strength first (SE) workouts in men an women (Taipale. 2013)

If we set these performance outcomes in relation to the endocrine changes the scientists observed, it's quite intriguing to see the that the highly significant increase in post-workout cortisol levels right after the strength-first trial in the men coincides with faster recovery in response to doing strength before cardio workout... or should I rather say in response to doing a steady state cardio session after your strength workout the guys recovered faster?

"Men better start with strength training. Women do whatever they like?! "

The faster recovery after the strength first, endurance second (SE) trial, as well as the 343x higher GH levels after the in this arm of the study appear to speak in favor of doing your strength training first, before you hop onto a recumbent bike or treadmill and add in another 40-60min of light intensity steady state training (LISS), if you are a man! In the fortunate case that you are a member of the estrogen driven fairer sex (= a woman ;-), the study at  hand appears to suggest that it would not really make much of a difference, whether you hit the weights first or second.

For people whose main goal it is to shed fat, the reduction in leptin with cardio first may argue in favor of during your cardio first (read more).

The SuppVersity veterans out there may now feel reminded of a 2012 study by di Blasio et al. that was likewise covered in the SuppVersity news. Di Blasio et al. were the first to investigate the effects of "doing cardio in between", i.e. hopping on the treadmill or cardio equipment of your choice after the completion of a strength circuit or any other given time point in your strength workout and returning to the weights, afterwards (learn more). Unfortunately, this still isn't the answer to everthing. In fact, you don't have to browse the SuppVersity archives for posts on exercise order for very long until you hit onto an article that carries the title "Cardio First if You Want to Leave the Gym More 'Anabolic' Than You Were When You Came in?" (read more) and points you into yet another direction...

So, which of the myriad of studies do we trust?

If it were not for one major glitch in the study at hand, I  would probably end this article on the note that the singularly long follow up period in the study at hand would clearly suggest that the results Taipale et al. generated in the course of their experiment had more practical value (we all know about the fallacy of the narrow minded focus on the immediate post-workout endocrine response; don't we?) the fact that they did not control for the workload is a real bummer.

Imagine the guys simply lifted way more weight in the strength first, endurance second trial - wouldn't an increased GH response to an identical endurance workout with way more depleted glycogen stores actually be what you would have to expect? Also, we all know that when you put men and women together in the gym, the former train until they drop, while the latter do as they are told and take their time looking at the sweaty guys while fumbling around with the weights... ok, that's a cliché, but there is way more than just the splinter of truth that's at the bottom of every of these commonly held prejudices.

---

Doing (intense) cardio first could promote anabolism (learn why).

Bottom line: In the end, I can only give you this advice. Try both! Try doing cardio before and after your workouts for 2 weeks each and decide afterwards which exercise order you like best. Things you should base your decision on are (a) the amount of weight you lift, (b) your performance during the cardio part of your workout, (c) how smooth the transition between one and the other goes, (d) how you feel the day after and during your next workout.

And don't forget, a glycogen depleting cardio session before your strength workout could increase the expression of the muscle building isoform PGC-1a (learn more)

References

• Di Blasio A, Gemello E, Di Iorio A, Di Giacinto G, Celso T, Di Renzo D, Sablone A., Ripari P. Order effects of concurrent endurance and resistance training on post-exercise response of non-trained women. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2012 Aug; 11:393-39.
• Taipale R, Häkkinen K. Acute hormonal and force responses to combined strength and endurance loadings in men and women: the "order effect". PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55051.