sequence and timing

[Evermont]

Looking for some reactions to these suggestions:

A) Morning workout is better than afternoon workout.

B) Do strength training FIRST, then cardio.

C) Split one hour of cardio into two half-hour periods with a twenty minute break between, eat nothing, just rest.

D) When working hard all-day e.g. distance hiking over rough terrain, make breaks either less than 7 minutes or longer than 30 minutes.

I'll chime in later with where I got these and what I think about them, for now I'm just interested in opinions (or facts) from all you smart wonderful diabetic folks. :D

[Scratch]

A. I've seen some say that for extended aerobic conditioning activities like distance running, the morning workout without breaking fast is a good one because it helps train the body to burn fat for energy. I don't have any references to good hard evidence for that hypothesis. Other than that, I don't think time of day is all that important. Making the time consistently is far more important. :)

B. I don't think I would want to do a hard leg strength workout before going out to run.

C. I'd try to go for the full hour. I'd rather have those 20 minutes be in the low aerobic range.

D. I'd take the short breaks over long breaks, at least I think as far as aerobic endurance goes keeping the breaks short will prevent the body from cycling down from the aerobic stresses and then going back up again. I think you'd get a much better overall aerobic conditioning by keeping the breaks short if possible.

[Evermont]

Scratch, thanks for responding. Some clarification:

on B) is your feedback just a personal preference or do you feel that strength training first followed by cardio is less optimal than cardio first followed by strength training?

on C) I wasn't clear enough. The recommendation is to get the full 1 hour of cardio with an additional 20 minutes of rest right in the middle, so 1 hour and 20 minutes elapsed time.

on D) the question isn't whether the short (<7 minutes) breaks are better or worse than the longer (>30 minutes) breaks but rather whether breaks of 8 to 29 minutes are less optimal than either the short or longer breaks.

[xMenace]

B) Do strength training FIRST, then cardio.

If I have 300lbs on my shoulders, I want to know my legs are up to it. I've always done weights first, except for the warmup.

[Evermont]

If I have 300lbs on my shoulders, I want to know my legs are up to it. I've always done weights first, except for the warmup.

You raise a good point John (as usual). I work out alone, no spotter. I don't push it so far that I risk dropping 150 lbs on my throat but I do presses with free weights for a couple sets, then I switch to the cable/stacks machine for the last set or two, just to be safe.

Interestingly, this issue you raise isn't the reason for the suggestion to do weight training first followed by cardio though.

[Scratch]

Scratch, thanks for responding. Some clarification:

on B) is your feedback just a personal preference or do you feel that strength training first followed by cardio is less optimal than cardio first followed by strength training?

on C) I wasn't clear enough. The recommendation is to get the full 1 hour of cardio with an additional 20 minutes of rest right in the middle, so 1 hour and 20 minutes elapsed time.

on D) the question isn't whether the short (<7 minutes) breaks are better or worse than the longer (>30 minutes) breaks but rather whether breaks of 8 to 29 minutes are less optimal than either the short or longer breaks.

I would say that B is personal preference of mine, simply because times that I have done heavy legwork before running, it hurt the run. I'd also say that sometimes when I've done some heavy work up around the shoulders before a long run, towards the end of the run I might often feel some tiredness in the shoulders that was uncomfortable. As to whether or not that is optimal for physical improvement, I don't know. OTOH, I do know that for me right now the most important part of training is doing the training. So I try to structure my time as best I can to get the most done possible with enough recovery time. It's not always easy finding that right balance and who knows, as my physical condition changes, I may shift things around.

C -- I'd still prefer going without the break. Again, that 20 minute break your body is cooling down and then has to warm up again. I'd prefer to have one warm up period and 1 cooldown period over having 2 of those.

D -- I think C tells my preference here. I'd aim for the spectrum end of shorter breaks. Whoops, I see I'm still not grokking the question exactly right. Sorry bout that. I don't know. I've never really had to consider the idea of that.

[morrisma]

Looking for some reactions to these suggestions:

A) Morning workout is better than afternoon workout.

B) Do strength training FIRST, then cardio.

C) Split one hour of cardio into two half-hour periods with a twenty minute break between, eat nothing, just rest.

D) When working hard all-day e.g. distance hiking over rough terrain, make breaks either less than 7 minutes or longer than 30 minutes.


A) I worked out for years at 5am. Now I work out at 6pm. The differences are: Way more crowds at the gym at 6pm. Way more opportunity to come up with excuses to skip the workout at 6pm.

B) Strength first. That way I don't sweat all over the equipment requiring cleaning between sets as I move from machine to machine.

C) No breaks in the cardio. I have read that after the 1st 30-40 minutes, you are more likely to burn fat and I suspect a break in the middle would reduce that fat-burning potential.

D) No clue really. With the scouts we took short breaks often and on a multi-day family hike we took less frequent longer breaks. Both cases probably fit your less than 7, greater than 30 criteria but I didn't keep a timer on to be sure. Waiting to hear why that might matter....

Mike

[Alice]

I just started working out at 7 a.m. This is my first week of "bootcamp" so I'm still in the experimental phase...so to speak!

I like the early morning workout since that is the time of day I have the least amount of insulin working...only my startup rise of Lantus...and if I choose/not choose...Humalog.

I don't take Humalog if I wake with a near perfect 90-110 number. But having said that, I still eat about 15-20 carbs before working out to prevent a low.

This is the first time I've ever "exercised" without a swing down or up during exercise. I seem to rise to about 130 and stay there...then come home and eat something more substantial and take a normal bolus...but watch the glucose for a couple of hours.

So far so good...so I'm liking the early workout. (Don't like getting up early with sore muscles!)

I have always heard/read not to exercise if glucose is more than 250...I'd probably lower that to 200. Strains the heart and a lot of people (undiagnosed) end up in the ER with heart problems...since we are (diagnosed)...we are a little smarter about preventing that...

[Jan B]

Just a note . . . if you have heart disease, it is advised to go easier on your heart early in the morning. In that case, an afternoon or evening workout would be wiser.

I agree with B.
Disagree with C. Start slow, speed up, vary speed, rest by walking instead of stopping.
D. I would break for 30 minutes. No reason; just my brand of common sense.

[jen_slc]

A) Morning might be better as it "boosts" your metabolism for the day (and possibly longer?); might have more energy first thing in the morning vs. after work. We also might struggle with increased insulin resistance in the morning; combine that with exercise-induced hyperglycemia that some of us experience and blood sugars might be terrible with this type of routine!

B) hmm, I wonder if this makes a difference? I'm very curious. I used to do strength training after cardio so that my muscles were warm; however, now I do more of the opposite (strength training first, then cardio) and I can tell you that I do better in both aspects. Yes, my muscles are tired after weights, but still able to do 30-60 min cardio. I might have a different story if I were running a marathon though.

C) What's the point? Wouldn't you miss out on the fat-burning stage here?

D) I think I would agree on this one. Reminds me of napping techniques: sleep less than 30 min or more than 2 hrs so that you don't interrupt REM sleep, or something like that. Maybe there is something similar with muscles? Give yourself enough recovery/catch-breath time, but not so much so that your muscles forget you are still working! If you're going to break for a while, might as well be a long one because you're going to have to "wake up" your muscles again.

[Evermont]

OK, I'll share what I know/think about these now...

A) Morning workout is better than afternoon workout.

Source: many.
You've probably heard this one before too. I still wonder how important the difference is. Like Scratch, I agree that it's much more important to actually do the exercise so if not morning then by all means afternoon/evening. I've heard that late day exercise can make it harder to fall asleep but I don't have that problem so maybe it just doesn't matter.


B) Do strength training FIRST, then cardio.
Source: My daughter (certified personal trainer)
On her advice, I switched my sequence. Not sure why this matters and want to know more about it so went looking. I found this article (link (http://weighttraining.about.com/od/techniquesandstrategies/a/cardio_weights.htm)) that discusses both and recommends the opposite. There's some interesting reading there.


C) Split one hour of cardio into two half-hour periods with a twenty minute break between, eat nothing, just rest.
Source: My daughter and this article (link (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=82706))
She's always in such a rush, I didn't get a chance to ask her why this is a good idea so I googled it and it may be well founded. You burn more fat if you insert this 20 minute rest in the middle of 1 hour of cardio a small study found.


D) When working hard all-day e.g. distance hiking over rough terrain, make breaks either less than 7 minutes or longer than 30 minutes.

Source: Ray Jardine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Jardine) from his book "Beyond Backpaking"
Ray was a aeronautical and astronautical engineer working at NASA when he gave it up to become a climber and distance hiker. My kind of guy. I liked the book a lot. I remember this suggestion and his explanation of how it takes more than seven minutes to build up lactic acid in the muscles and how it gets cleared out again after 30 minutes. If you resume activity after say 20 minutes, you might find that you experience more muscle soreness. I think maybe Ray is right about this, but on the other hand, I don't think it matters a whole lot. I've done breaks of various durations and yeah, sometimes the muscles are sore - so what! Man, after hiking for hours on end everything is just plain sore anyway, I press on. But this tip is contradictory with the previous tip so that got me thinking.

[BlueSky]

The reason I have seen for doing strength work first is that it gets your body into fat burning mode before you start the cardio. It is supposed to help you lose weight. And for a T1 diabetic, blood sugar doesn't drop as quickly during the cardio exercise.

[Evermont]

The reason I have seen for doing strength work first is that it gets your body into fat burning mode before you start the cardio. It is supposed to help you lose weight. And for a T1 diabetic, blood sugar doesn't drop as quickly during the cardio exercise.

That's how I understood things, but the article I linked above says:

Burn more fat. Now this one really sounds attractive, the idea being that if you deplete some carbohydrate stores, particularly blood glucose, with an initial weights session, you'll be in fat burning mode. Theoretically this makes some sense but as we saw in my article, So You Want to Burn More Fat, the fat burning zone is a mythical construct and what really matters is how much energy you expend overall.

And goes on to link to:
Burn more fat (http://weighttraining.about.com/od/fatlossweighttraining/a/fat_burn.htm)
and New research (http://weighttraining.about.com/od/fatlossweighttraining/a/burn_more_fat.htm)


Not sure yet what to make of all this - but it is interesting!:hmmmm:

[Evermont]

...I work out alone, no spotter. I don't push it so far that I risk dropping 150 lbs on my throat but I do presses with free weights for a couple sets, then I switch to the cable/stacks machine for the last set or two, just to be safe...

This morning I was in the middle of my second set of inclined presses when George, who likes to hang out with me in the garage, jumped from my Total Gym onto my stomach! :eek:

I almost dropped 150 lbs on my throat!

This is George:

http://www.diabetesforums.com/gallery/files/9/0/7/7/IMG_0186_2_med.jpg

Don't ya just want to jump on his stomach?

[Scratch]

This morning I was in the middle of my second set of inclined presses when George, who likes to hang out with me in the garage, jumped from my Total Gym onto my stomach! :eek:

I almost dropped 150 lbs on my throat!

This is George:

http://www.diabetesforums.com/gallery/files/9/0/7/7/IMG_0186_2_med.jpg

Don't ya just want to jump on his stomach?
That's funny. I've got a cat who prowls around me when I'm doing push ups or playing with the ab wheels. She's never jumped on me, she just makes noises that she wants to get fed.

[BlueSky]

That's how I understood things, but the article I linked above says:

Burn more fat. Now this one really sounds attractive, the idea being that if you deplete some carbohydrate stores, particularly blood glucose, with an initial weights session, you'll be in fat burning mode. Theoretically this makes some sense but as we saw in my article, So You Want to Burn More Fat, the fat burning zone is a mythical construct and what really matters is how much energy you expend overall.

And goes on to link to:
Burn more fat (http://weighttraining.about.com/od/fatlossweighttraining/a/fat_burn.htm)
and New research (http://weighttraining.about.com/od/fatlossweighttraining/a/burn_more_fat.htm)


Not sure yet what to make of all this - but it is interesting!:hmmmm:

The existence/relevance of the so-called fat burning zone seems to be questionable. But I don't know that it really makes any difference. Most people who are trying to lose weight can't sustain exercise at 80+% of their maximum heart rate for very long anyway. ;)

The switch into fat burning mode after 20 minutes of exercise is a different phenomenon. I think it is more generally accepted. The behaviour of my blood glucose levels when exercising certainly supports it.