Yet ANOTHER Study Debunking "fasted cardio"
Options
Replies
-
Ok, sorry, trying to be helpful! I like how it pops up to tell you when someone else replied.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Did you know you can now hit the little star on any thread to bookmark it? Then it shows up in your bookmarks, accessed from the little star on the top right of your forum view.
Though if you like it to show up that you replied in your news feed, I guess you still would need to reply.
I do... it would actually be sad if I didn't..
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Ok, sorry, trying to be helpful! I like how it pops up to tell you when someone else replied.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Did you know you can now hit the little star on any thread to bookmark it? Then it shows up in your bookmarks, accessed from the little star on the top right of your forum view. Though if you like it to show up that you replied in your news feed, I guess you still would need to reply.
I do... it would actually be sad if I didn't..
No reason to be sorry. Thank you for being helpful.0 -
."AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?
That's be nice.
Citing studies to back up your position is valid. If someone makes a claim it is also valid to request they back it up with actual evidence more than opinion.
0 -
Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?herrspoons wrote: »
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
I think it's also important to realise what this actually means. Short of mathematics, where you can absolutely prove something, turning it from a conjecture to a theorem, the object of any scientific experiment is to test a hypothesis, and to interpret what that suggests, usually by significance testing.
As such, one can build a strong case for a particular hypothesis by repetition of the original experiment, correlation with related studies, or comparison with different studies, and so on. By doing this over time we learn which directions to pursue and which to discard (and sometimes pick up again as our knowledge and investigative ability increases).
So, yes: posting an isolated study or a series of cherry picked extracts from studies isn't helpful, however posting the results of a carefully controlled and relevant study, or better still a body of studies supporting a unified Theory, is.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
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.
Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."
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.
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.
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.
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.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »I don't care if that is statistically insignificant. I'll take a 0.6% extra bodyfat loss for fasted cardio any day, ha-ha.
Then you clearly don't understand statistical significance. 0.6% is far below the accuracy of ANY bodyfat measuring technique (except perhaps vivisection).
As I said. I don't care about statistical significance. I only care about the actual numbers
Derp.
Lack of statistical significance means that the difference in the results is no different than you would expect from random chance. If, instead of fasted/fed, they plotted the results by the color of their outfits, you find a similar result.
Nice. Succinct AND laywoman's terms. Well played.
0 -
this is why I hardly don't quote anything.herrspoons wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »I don't care if that is statistically insignificant. I'll take a 0.6% extra bodyfat loss for fasted cardio any day, ha-ha.
Then you clearly don't understand statistical significance. 0.6% is far below the accuracy of ANY bodyfat measuring technique (except perhaps vivisection).
This.
People shouldn't quote stats if they don't know how to interpret them.
0 -
dieselbyte wrote: »As was stated earlier, it would be interesting to see a study run over a longer period. However, with that being said, I don't believe results from fasted cardio are statisticaly superior compared to a fed state. I do believe that it is individual preference. If one can perform to the best of their abilities fasted, then go for it. If a fasted state inhibits performance, either mentally, physically, or both, then why even bother?
ETA: As was stated earlier, "majoring in minors"
I know there were words next to your avatar...but I have NO idea what they said.0 -
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
somethings clearly changed because boys went to mars to eat more candy bars when I heard this.0 -
MyChocolateDiet wrote: »
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
somethings clearly changed because boys went to mars to eat more candy bars when I heard this.
And girls went to Venus to get more....0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »MyChocolateDiet wrote: »
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
somethings clearly changed because boys went to mars to eat more candy bars when I heard this.
And girls went to Venus to get more....
oh stahp! what kinda school did you go to?
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/
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions