Yet ANOTHER Study Debunking "fasted cardio"
Replies
-
Schoenfeld just posted this on facebook -- this is commentary/thoughts on the study: http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/my-new-study-on-fasted-cardio-and-fat-loss-take-home-points/
Man I am WAY behind on my Twitter feed today (long, busy day at work). I just read that and copied the link to post to this discussion. Thanks for adding it earlier. I jumped ahead to post this, so it may have been mentioned, but anyone with questions re sample size, etc should read this article as it addresses them directly.
PS: I'm old enough that I'm not easily impressed, but I did a double-take when I saw AA add a comment. Not used to sitting at the cool kids table
0 -
Random question. When people say things like "lean people trying to get leaner are different", how "lean" are we talking?0
-
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Random question. When people say things like "lean people trying to get leaner are different", how "lean" are we talking?
Like under 8% trying to get under 5%.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
In for updates, and also for stats.
0 -
More on the stats (from James Krieger)
I'm going to chime in here on the statistics since I'm the one who ran the stats in this study.
First, people need to be very careful about taking the slightly better mean change in the fasted group and then saying this study showed a slight edge for fasted cardio. If we're going to look at the data that way, one must also consider that the fasted group started off slightly worse in terms of body fat compared to the fed group. Thus, we would expect the fasted group to have a slightly greater decrease based on that alone. Thus, it is a mistake to infer that the differences would've been magnified with a longer duration study.
Second, while there are limitations to statistical significance with small sample sizes, the results were not even close to being statistically significant. We're talking P values of around 0.8 for the differences. Thus, we can't even claim there's a slight trend in any way.
Third, anyone who wants to claim that somehow we were biased in our study or analysis is not evaluating the totality of evidence, including 24-hour fat oxidation results by Paoli et al. Anyone who wants to claim a benefit to fasted cardio must explain the mechanism of the benefit (you can't just look at fat oxidation during exercise, you must look at it over 24 hours), and show data to support that mechanism. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on individuals who claim a benefit to fasted cardio.
A null study such as ours is never definitive proof of anything. However, when one considers 24-hour fat oxidation data for fasted vs fed cardio, our results are consistent with this, and there is simply no evidence that fasted cardio offers a fat loss benefit. Thus, until data shows otherwise, I am perfectly comfortable claiming "no benefit" to fasted cardio.
https://www.facebook.com/gregory.nuckols/posts/10152477532998779
(From the comments)0 -
Thats funny. Study the difference in fat burn during exercise? Not good enough, gotta look at the whole day. Not good enough. Look, we studied it for 4 weeks. Not long enough.
There might be a study that shows a difference in the future with better methods of measuring, reporting, duration or whatever. Wonder if they will be so quick to dismiss it for being just one study then.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »More on the stats (from James Krieger)
I'm going to chime in here on the statistics since I'm the one who ran the stats in this study.
First, people need to be very careful about taking the slightly better mean change in the fasted group and then saying this study showed a slight edge for fasted cardio. If we're going to look at the data that way, one must also consider that the fasted group started off slightly worse in terms of body fat compared to the fed group. Thus, we would expect the fasted group to have a slightly greater decrease based on that alone. Thus, it is a mistake to infer that the differences would've been magnified with a longer duration study.
Second, while there are limitations to statistical significance with small sample sizes, the results were not even close to being statistically significant. We're talking P values of around 0.8 for the differences. Thus, we can't even claim there's a slight trend in any way.
Third, anyone who wants to claim that somehow we were biased in our study or analysis is not evaluating the totality of evidence, including 24-hour fat oxidation results by Paoli et al. Anyone who wants to claim a benefit to fasted cardio must explain the mechanism of the benefit (you can't just look at fat oxidation during exercise, you must look at it over 24 hours), and show data to support that mechanism. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on individuals who claim a benefit to fasted cardio.
A null study such as ours is never definitive proof of anything. However, when one considers 24-hour fat oxidation data for fasted vs fed cardio, our results are consistent with this, and there is simply no evidence that fasted cardio offers a fat loss benefit. Thus, until data shows otherwise, I am perfectly comfortable claiming "no benefit" to fasted cardio.
https://www.facebook.com/gregory.nuckols/posts/10152477532998779
(From the comments)
Good addition. So now we have heard from 3 of the authors--Aragon, Schoenfeld, and Krieger. If I may say so myself, I think everyone has gotten their money's worth on this topic.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »More on the stats (from James Krieger)
I'm going to chime in here on the statistics since I'm the one who ran the stats in this study.
First, people need to be very careful about taking the slightly better mean change in the fasted group and then saying this study showed a slight edge for fasted cardio. If we're going to look at the data that way, one must also consider that the fasted group started off slightly worse in terms of body fat compared to the fed group. Thus, we would expect the fasted group to have a slightly greater decrease based on that alone. Thus, it is a mistake to infer that the differences would've been magnified with a longer duration study.
Second, while there are limitations to statistical significance with small sample sizes, the results were not even close to being statistically significant. We're talking P values of around 0.8 for the differences. Thus, we can't even claim there's a slight trend in any way.
Third, anyone who wants to claim that somehow we were biased in our study or analysis is not evaluating the totality of evidence, including 24-hour fat oxidation results by Paoli et al. Anyone who wants to claim a benefit to fasted cardio must explain the mechanism of the benefit (you can't just look at fat oxidation during exercise, you must look at it over 24 hours), and show data to support that mechanism. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on individuals who claim a benefit to fasted cardio.
A null study such as ours is never definitive proof of anything. However, when one considers 24-hour fat oxidation data for fasted vs fed cardio, our results are consistent with this, and there is simply no evidence that fasted cardio offers a fat loss benefit. Thus, until data shows otherwise, I am perfectly comfortable claiming "no benefit" to fasted cardio.
https://www.facebook.com/gregory.nuckols/posts/10152477532998779
(From the comments)
Good addition. So now we have heard from 3 of the authors--Aragon, Schoenfeld, and Krieger. If I may say so myself, I think everyone has gotten their money's worth on this topic.
Absolutely, 100% agree.
Speaking generally (not directing this part at you Azdak):
1) That facebook thread is great and anyone interested in the topic should take a look at it and also consider following Alan, Brad, James as they tend to drop knowledge bombs like this in various threads. James not as often but he still shows up from time to time.
2) And this part is really important in my opinion -- The facebook thread above is a perfect example as to why debates on the internet are absolutely worth having. You never know how many people are lurking and learning, and the fact that these study authors take their time to discuss things like this (or at times, debate naysayers like Fred Hahn and others) is awesome and it's an opportunity for everyone to learn. There's a whole lot of knowledge to be gained when debates like this occur and I'm thankful that they happen.
I'm posting this second part because we seem to have a population of people that believe that debates like this aren't productive, and that we should only post opinion if we agree and that we should all hold hands and sing along.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »More on the stats (from James Krieger)
I'm going to chime in here on the statistics since I'm the one who ran the stats in this study.
First, people need to be very careful about taking the slightly better mean change in the fasted group and then saying this study showed a slight edge for fasted cardio. If we're going to look at the data that way, one must also consider that the fasted group started off slightly worse in terms of body fat compared to the fed group. Thus, we would expect the fasted group to have a slightly greater decrease based on that alone. Thus, it is a mistake to infer that the differences would've been magnified with a longer duration study.
Second, while there are limitations to statistical significance with small sample sizes, the results were not even close to being statistically significant. We're talking P values of around 0.8 for the differences. Thus, we can't even claim there's a slight trend in any way.
Third, anyone who wants to claim that somehow we were biased in our study or analysis is not evaluating the totality of evidence, including 24-hour fat oxidation results by Paoli et al. Anyone who wants to claim a benefit to fasted cardio must explain the mechanism of the benefit (you can't just look at fat oxidation during exercise, you must look at it over 24 hours), and show data to support that mechanism. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on individuals who claim a benefit to fasted cardio.
A null study such as ours is never definitive proof of anything. However, when one considers 24-hour fat oxidation data for fasted vs fed cardio, our results are consistent with this, and there is simply no evidence that fasted cardio offers a fat loss benefit. Thus, until data shows otherwise, I am perfectly comfortable claiming "no benefit" to fasted cardio.
https://www.facebook.com/gregory.nuckols/posts/10152477532998779
(From the comments)
Good addition. So now we have heard from 3 of the authors--Aragon, Schoenfeld, and Krieger. If I may say so myself, I think everyone has gotten their money's worth on this topic.
Absolutely, 100% agree.
Speaking generally (not directing this part at you Azdak):
1) That facebook thread is great and anyone interested in the topic should take a look at it and also consider following Alan, Brad, James as they tend to drop knowledge bombs like this in various threads. James not as often but he still shows up from time to time.
2) And this part is really important in my opinion -- The facebook thread above is a perfect example as to why debates on the internet are absolutely worth having. You never know how many people are lurking and learning, and the fact that these study authors take their time to discuss things like this (or at times, debate naysayers like Fred Hahn and others) is awesome and it's an opportunity for everyone to learn. There's a whole lot of knowledge to be gained when debates like this occur and I'm thankful that they happen.
I'm posting this second part because we seem to have a population of people that believe that debates like this aren't productive, and that we should only post opinion if we agree and that we should all hold hands and sing along.
This last part made me laugh. 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This is why we can't have nice things.0
-
In cuz Alan0
-
I repeat the question: in what way is refraining from name-calling "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?herrspoons wrote: »Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?
Not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be taking this personally. It really isn't about you, it's about the process of what drives theory.If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.
Well, yes. I covered this with replication and correlation. Still not sure what your point is.Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."
Again covered by my post.Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.
The same guy with his test tube will have developed a hypothesis, tested it, provided evidence if statistical difference, and then published or shown this to his peers. He doesn't just turn up with a novel potion.
You seem to be confusing science with magic here.Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.
And?If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.
So what are we supposed to use? Astrology? If someone makes a statement which they back up with outdated, incomplete, or cherry picked 'science' then we have every right to challenge them.Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.
Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.
I know. Buy it does it in a controlled and replicable manner
I'm not sure, other than an emotional outpouring of the points I and others have already made, what you're trying to say here.
0 -
Schoenfeld just posted this on facebook -- this is commentary/thoughts on the study: http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/my-new-study-on-fasted-cardio-and-fat-loss-take-home-points/
This - for accepted known limitations, some valid times for use potentially, and even some comments as to the age thing someone brought up (as if avg 21 and 23 really makes a difference) because they did body comp pair matching.
Adzak's comment too about how many grams of fat actually burned during the workout either direction just looking at acute figures is added to by the study reference of changes to all day fat burn.
It would have been interesting in the study to look at acute changes though from start to finish. Like were there some improvements in mobilizing fat between the groups like 30 min into workout, at start and at end of study? Purely for the endurance aspect of sparing muscle glucose by using fat earlier in the session.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
herrspoons wrote: »
I repeat the question: in what way is refraining from name-calling "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?herrspoons wrote: »Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?
Not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be taking this personally. It really isn't about you, it's about the process of what drives theory.If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.
Well, yes. I covered this with replication and correlation. Still not sure what your point is.Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."
Again covered by my post.Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.
The same guy with his test tube will have developed a hypothesis, tested it, provided evidence if statistical difference, and then published or shown this to his peers. He doesn't just turn up with a novel potion.
You seem to be confusing science with magic here.Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.
And?If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.
So what are we supposed to use? Astrology? If someone makes a statement which they back up with outdated, incomplete, or cherry picked 'science' then we have every right to challenge them.Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.
Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.
I know. Buy it does it in a controlled and replicable manner
I'm not sure, other than an emotional outpouring of the points I and others have already made, what you're trying to say here.
*facepalm*
Can we make it a triple?
Let me try to explain in simple terms, since you don't seem to understand the point herrspoons is making:
Just because one study in and of itself doesn't definitively prove anything doesn't mean it should be automatically discounted (*This* is throwing the baby out with the bathwater)*, especially if it lends weight to a more widely accepted unified theory. As Aragon stated, its all about finding "pieces of the puzzle".
*I have no idea why you keep talking about name-calling. Do you even understand this idiom?0 -
Not quite the well-reasoned, thoughtful, scientific kind of answer I was hoping for...but I guess that settles the matter.herrspoons wrote: »
I repeat the question: in what way is refraining from name-calling "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?herrspoons wrote: »Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?
Not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be taking this personally. It really isn't about you, it's about the process of what drives theory.If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.
Well, yes. I covered this with replication and correlation. Still not sure what your point is.Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."
Again covered by my post.Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.
The same guy with his test tube will have developed a hypothesis, tested it, provided evidence if statistical difference, and then published or shown this to his peers. He doesn't just turn up with a novel potion.
You seem to be confusing science with magic here.Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.
And?If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.
So what are we supposed to use? Astrology? If someone makes a statement which they back up with outdated, incomplete, or cherry picked 'science' then we have every right to challenge them.Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.
Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.
I know. Buy it does it in a controlled and replicable manner
I'm not sure, other than an emotional outpouring of the points I and others have already made, what you're trying to say here.
*facepalm*
0 -
Nope, that's not his point. I never suggested that. He was responding to what I said.daybehavior wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »
I repeat the question: in what way is refraining from name-calling "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?herrspoons wrote: »Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?
Not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be taking this personally. It really isn't about you, it's about the process of what drives theory.If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.
Well, yes. I covered this with replication and correlation. Still not sure what your point is.Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."
Again covered by my post.Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.
The same guy with his test tube will have developed a hypothesis, tested it, provided evidence if statistical difference, and then published or shown this to his peers. He doesn't just turn up with a novel potion.
You seem to be confusing science with magic here.Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.
And?If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.
So what are we supposed to use? Astrology? If someone makes a statement which they back up with outdated, incomplete, or cherry picked 'science' then we have every right to challenge them.Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.
Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.
I know. Buy it does it in a controlled and replicable manner
I'm not sure, other than an emotional outpouring of the points I and others have already made, what you're trying to say here.
*facepalm*
Can we make it a triple?
Let me try to explain in simple terms, since you don't seem to understand the point herrspoons is making:
Just because one study in and of itself doesn't definitively prove anything doesn't mean it should be automatically discounted (*This* is throwing the baby out with the bathwater)*, especially if it lends weight to a more widely accepted unified theory. As Aragon stated, its all about finding "pieces of the puzzle".
*I have no idea why you keep talking about name-calling. Do you even understand this idiom?
0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions