Should you REALLY eat in the morning before a workout?
Options
Replies
-
Norton thinks you should do cardio on a full stomach, that's probably why I don't know him.0
-
Oooh oooh! I just watched a show on this last week where they did a live test across a bunch of men and women in the hopes to prove or disprove the theory of empty or full stomach workouts!!
There is a series in the UK called "Trust me I'm a doctor" new episode each week where they try to blow things out of the water, a bit like Mythbusters for medical stuff. I only just learned of the series and it started last week.
The first episode focuses on this exact question! From measuring fat burn rates in their groups, they showed that women burn more fat after exercise if they exercise on a full stomach vs empty, but for men it was the opposite. All the men in their groups burned more fat exercising on empty vs those men who ate first.
They ran the test over several days and controlled the exact calories going in etc....kinda like Mythbusters do....to make it as good a test as you can have I suppose. Laboratory conditions and such.
They brought in scientists to explain why, who theorised that it's a symptom of evolution, where woman's bodies are inherently designed to burn fat regardless of any other immediate nutrients being present during exercise. For men they theorised that they are rigged to burn carbohydrates, so you need to not have any present during exercise to get your body to burn fat. I'm simplifying but I believe that was the jist of their "take" on why it was happening in the tests. They also went on to say nobody had done a test like this before so it was new information that warranted further investigation.
So perhaps we'll see full blown studies on this in the months or years to come.
If you're interested you can watch the show for free on the online BBC player for a few more days I think.0 -
Very informative, thank you. This could be why summerkissed and I don't see eye to eye on this however not sure why all the dudes disagree with me.Oooh oooh! I just watched a show on this last week where they did a live test across a bunch of men and women in the hopes to prove or disprove the theory of empty or full stomach workouts!!
There is a series in the UK called "Trust me I'm a doctor" new episode each week where they try to blow things out of the water, a bit like Mythbusters for medical stuff. I only just learned of the series and it started last week.
The first episode focuses on this exact question! From measuring fat burn rates in their groups, they showed that women burn more fat after exercise if they exercise on a full stomach vs empty, but for men it was the opposite. All the men in their groups burned more fat exercising on empty vs those men who ate first.
They ran the test over several days and controlled the exact calories going in etc....kinda like Mythbusters do....to make it as good a test as you can have I suppose. Laboratory conditions and such.
They brought in scientists to explain why, who theorised that it's a symptom of evolution, where woman's bodies are inherently designed to burn fat regardless of any other immediate nutrients being present during exercise. For men they theorised that they are rigged to burn carbohydrates, so you need to not have any present during exercise to get your body to burn fat. I'm simplifying but I believe that was the jist of their "take" on why it was happening in the tests. They also went on to say nobody had done a test like this before so it was new information that warranted further investigation.
So perhaps we'll see full blown studies on this in the months or years to come.
If you're interested you can watch the show for free on the online BBC player for a few more days I think.
0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »
This about sums up my input on the subject. I'd say it's very close for how eating affects me. I often work out in the 12-15 hour fasted mode, and unless I'm killing it, my workouts don't suffer. Now and then I'll eat some food before working out, just to get ahead on the eating game, but it really makes no difference for the workout itself.0 -
Oooh oooh! I just watched a show on this last week where they did a live test across a bunch of men and women in the hopes to prove or disprove the theory of empty or full stomach workouts!!
There is a series in the UK called "Trust me I'm a doctor" new episode each week where they try to blow things out of the water, a bit like Mythbusters for medical stuff. I only just learned of the series and it started last week.
The first episode focuses on this exact question! From measuring fat burn rates in their groups, they showed that women burn more fat after exercise if they exercise on a full stomach vs empty, but for men it was the opposite. All the men in their groups burned more fat exercising on empty vs those men who ate first.
They ran the test over several days and controlled the exact calories going in etc....kinda like Mythbusters do....to make it as good a test as you can have I suppose. Laboratory conditions and such.
They brought in scientists to explain why, who theorised that it's a symptom of evolution, where woman's bodies are inherently designed to burn fat regardless of any other immediate nutrients being present during exercise. For men they theorised that they are rigged to burn carbohydrates, so you need to not have any present during exercise to get your body to burn fat. I'm simplifying but I believe that was the jist of their "take" on why it was happening in the tests. They also went on to say nobody had done a test like this before so it was new information that warranted further investigation.
So perhaps we'll see full blown studies on this in the months or years to come.
If you're interested you can watch the show for free on the online BBC player for a few more days I think.
I watched this too - with Dr Michael Mosley, his progs are always very interesting. They also analysed/tested protein shakes - two groups, one given protein shake and the other a placebo, muscle growth was around 3% after the test period for both groups. They concluded protein shakes are a great way to make expensive pee. And energy drinks are apparently little better than sugar-water. Highly recommended viewing.0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »
Very informative, thank you. This could be why summerkissed and I don't see eye to eye on this however not sure why all the dudes disagree with me.Oooh oooh! I just watched a show on this last week where they did a live test across a bunch of men and women in the hopes to prove or disprove the theory of empty or full stomach workouts!!
There is a series in the UK called "Trust me I'm a doctor" new episode each week where they try to blow things out of the water, a bit like Mythbusters for medical stuff. I only just learned of the series and it started last week.
The first episode focuses on this exact question! From measuring fat burn rates in their groups, they showed that women burn more fat after exercise if they exercise on a full stomach vs empty, but for men it was the opposite. All the men in their groups burned more fat exercising on empty vs those men who ate first.
They ran the test over several days and controlled the exact calories going in etc....kinda like Mythbusters do....to make it as good a test as you can have I suppose. Laboratory conditions and such.
They brought in scientists to explain why, who theorised that it's a symptom of evolution, where woman's bodies are inherently designed to burn fat regardless of any other immediate nutrients being present during exercise. For men they theorised that they are rigged to burn carbohydrates, so you need to not have any present during exercise to get your body to burn fat. I'm simplifying but I believe that was the jist of their "take" on why it was happening in the tests. They also went on to say nobody had done a test like this before so it was new information that warranted further investigation.
So perhaps we'll see full blown studies on this in the months or years to come.
If you're interested you can watch the show for free on the online BBC player for a few more days I think.
Perhaps because you have no idea what you are taking about.0 -
Well ... this went places.
Alan Aragon's thoughts in 2014, seem relevant.So, the topic of nutrient timing is once again making the rounds in social media, and there are some things I have been meaning to air out. Here are my "off-the-record" musings about my recent publications with Brad Schoenfeld & James Krieger. As thorough as we try to be, important details and nuances get overlooked. Here's the important stuff I feel tends to get glazed-over when folks read the papers (warning, long post ahead):
_______________________________________________________
“I read that nutrient timing doesn’t work according to that study published in JISSN.” <--- Big strawman right there. Everyone do yourselves a huge favor and read the full texts of both our narrative review (http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5) as well as our meta-analysis (http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/53). You'll notice that with our narrative review, we are quite explicit in how we frame the VARIABLE IMPORTANCE of timing based on the context of the individual goal/situation. Nutrient timing importance exists on a continuum of minimally to maximally important, depending on several factors.
As for our meta-analysis, we examined very specific temporal parameters, and made no claims beyond the parameters we analyzed. It's entirely possible that protein feeding neglect beyond 2 hrs pre- and/or post-exercise could compromise muscular adaptations to training, but our meta-analysis specifically compared protein feeding within the ≤ 1-hr "anabolic window of opportunity" adjacent to the training bout, versus >2 hrs away from the "window." Keep that in mind as you draw conclusions. We never once said that you can have all your protein in a single sitting & optimize muscle anabolism. Once again, read both papers in their entirety - there are many crucially important details that should not be overlooked.
Another thing people will miss if they don't read the full text is that there is a relative abundance of protein "timing" studies that don't match total protein intake between the groups compared. In contrast, there is a painful scarcity of studies that DO match total protein between groups despite different timing (as opposed to merely comparing a protein supplement with a non-protein placebo & failing to make up for this extra protein in the control group). In the non-matched studies, the mean total protein intake of the control group was 1.33 g/kg, whereas mean intake in the treatment (protein-timed) groups was 1.66 g/kg.
Notice that the higher dose of the protein-timed conditions crosses the threshold of optimality, which per the bulk of the literature is appx 1.6 g/kg & up. Regression analysis confirmed this idea, revealing that when total protein intake as a covariate was accounted for, the timing effect disappeared. Nevertheless, we ran a sub-analysis of protein-matched studies and still failed to detect a significant effect of timing protein closer to training. Why is this? It's likely because of the sufficiently high/optimized total daily protein intakes (1.91 in the treatment groups vs 1.81 in the control groups). This finding is actually reflective of a recent meta-analysis on protein supplementation by Cermak et al, who found that protein-supplemented conditions where the total was brought up to about 1.8 g/kg was superior for muscle anabolism compared to the mean protein intake of the non-supplemented conditions, which was appx 1.2 g/kg.
Generally speaking, the higher the total daily protein intake (or closer it is to optimal levels), the lesser the effect or benefit of specific timing of its constituent doses. With few exceptions on the fringe, those whose primary goal is muscle hypertrophy will typically spend the majority of their waking hours in not only in the post-prandial (fed) state, but also in a state of hyperaminoacidemia due to multiple protein-rich meals. The temporal shifting of these protein feedings in the aforementioned scenario would be of minimal impact, and our analysis supports this. Now hold on a second, if an advanced trainee close to his potential wanted to max-out all hypothetical routes toward muscle anabolism, I would agree that it makes sense to not neglect protein feeding around training. It's the specific timing thresholds beyond which significant detriments to anabolism occur that's debatable. Our analysis supports the idea that, yeah, you can drive home in traffic & have steak and potatoes when you get home (as opposed to snorting a whey/dextrose shake in the locker room) and not compromise gains.
One thing worth mentioning about the narrative review vs the meta-analysis is that the latter is a cold, hard, quantitative look at very strictly defined parameters. The narrative review, while lacking in quantitative capacity, delved into some broader and more dynamic strokes. It also provided practical applications of protein (and carbohydrate) timing for the goal of muscle anabolism, along with an in-depth rationale. Thus, I feel that both papers are equally important, and they complement each other.
An interesting tidbit regarding out meta-analysis is that of the 29 studies that were initially considered for inclusion (this was pared down to 23 studies after excluding those that failed to meet the inclusion criteria), only 5 studies matched protein (2 of which were excluded due to a failure to meet our criteria). NEVERTHELESS. 3 out of those initial 5 protein-matched studies did *not* observe a significant effect of timing protein closer to the training bout. My point here is that the 'legendary lore' of the anabolic window is not based on an expansive bedrock of evidence - not by a long shot.
Now for my final point - I can see how our findings would frustrate folks who have spent a good deal of time teaching or emphasizing the anabolic window concept. But hopefully you can see how precise timing relative to training is far more of a thin layer of icing on the cake rather than the cake itself, which is total daily macronutrition. This should be good news for folks who value more convenience and flexibility.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Well ... this went places.
Alan Aragon's thoughts in 2014, seem relevant.So, the topic of nutrient timing is once again making the rounds in social media, and there are some things I have been meaning to air out. Here are my "off-the-record" musings about my recent publications with Brad Schoenfeld & James Krieger. As thorough as we try to be, important details and nuances get overlooked. Here's the important stuff I feel tends to get glazed-over when folks read the papers (warning, long post ahead):
_______________________________________________________
“I read that nutrient timing doesn’t work according to that study published in JISSN.” <--- Big strawman right there. Everyone do yourselves a huge favor and read the full texts of both our narrative review (http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5) as well as our meta-analysis (http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/53). You'll notice that with our narrative review, we are quite explicit in how we frame the VARIABLE IMPORTANCE of timing based on the context of the individual goal/situation. Nutrient timing importance exists on a continuum of minimally to maximally important, depending on several factors.
As for our meta-analysis, we examined very specific temporal parameters, and made no claims beyond the parameters we analyzed. It's entirely possible that protein feeding neglect beyond 2 hrs pre- and/or post-exercise could compromise muscular adaptations to training, but our meta-analysis specifically compared protein feeding within the ≤ 1-hr "anabolic window of opportunity" adjacent to the training bout, versus >2 hrs away from the "window." Keep that in mind as you draw conclusions. We never once said that you can have all your protein in a single sitting & optimize muscle anabolism. Once again, read both papers in their entirety - there are many crucially important details that should not be overlooked.
Another thing people will miss if they don't read the full text is that there is a relative abundance of protein "timing" studies that don't match total protein intake between the groups compared. In contrast, there is a painful scarcity of studies that DO match total protein between groups despite different timing (as opposed to merely comparing a protein supplement with a non-protein placebo & failing to make up for this extra protein in the control group). In the non-matched studies, the mean total protein intake of the control group was 1.33 g/kg, whereas mean intake in the treatment (protein-timed) groups was 1.66 g/kg.
Notice that the higher dose of the protein-timed conditions crosses the threshold of optimality, which per the bulk of the literature is appx 1.6 g/kg & up. Regression analysis confirmed this idea, revealing that when total protein intake as a covariate was accounted for, the timing effect disappeared. Nevertheless, we ran a sub-analysis of protein-matched studies and still failed to detect a significant effect of timing protein closer to training. Why is this? It's likely because of the sufficiently high/optimized total daily protein intakes (1.91 in the treatment groups vs 1.81 in the control groups). This finding is actually reflective of a recent meta-analysis on protein supplementation by Cermak et al, who found that protein-supplemented conditions where the total was brought up to about 1.8 g/kg was superior for muscle anabolism compared to the mean protein intake of the non-supplemented conditions, which was appx 1.2 g/kg.
Generally speaking, the higher the total daily protein intake (or closer it is to optimal levels), the lesser the effect or benefit of specific timing of its constituent doses. With few exceptions on the fringe, those whose primary goal is muscle hypertrophy will typically spend the majority of their waking hours in not only in the post-prandial (fed) state, but also in a state of hyperaminoacidemia due to multiple protein-rich meals. The temporal shifting of these protein feedings in the aforementioned scenario would be of minimal impact, and our analysis supports this. Now hold on a second, if an advanced trainee close to his potential wanted to max-out all hypothetical routes toward muscle anabolism, I would agree that it makes sense to not neglect protein feeding around training. It's the specific timing thresholds beyond which significant detriments to anabolism occur that's debatable. Our analysis supports the idea that, yeah, you can drive home in traffic & have steak and potatoes when you get home (as opposed to snorting a whey/dextrose shake in the locker room) and not compromise gains.
One thing worth mentioning about the narrative review vs the meta-analysis is that the latter is a cold, hard, quantitative look at very strictly defined parameters. The narrative review, while lacking in quantitative capacity, delved into some broader and more dynamic strokes. It also provided practical applications of protein (and carbohydrate) timing for the goal of muscle anabolism, along with an in-depth rationale. Thus, I feel that both papers are equally important, and they complement each other.
An interesting tidbit regarding out meta-analysis is that of the 29 studies that were initially considered for inclusion (this was pared down to 23 studies after excluding those that failed to meet the inclusion criteria), only 5 studies matched protein (2 of which were excluded due to a failure to meet our criteria). NEVERTHELESS. 3 out of those initial 5 protein-matched studies did *not* observe a significant effect of timing protein closer to the training bout. My point here is that the 'legendary lore' of the anabolic window is not based on an expansive bedrock of evidence - not by a long shot.
Now for my final point - I can see how our findings would frustrate folks who have spent a good deal of time teaching or emphasizing the anabolic window concept. But hopefully you can see how precise timing relative to training is far more of a thin layer of icing on the cake rather than the cake itself, which is total daily macronutrition. This should be good news for folks who value more convenience and flexibility.
PFFT!
Why listen to a fictional character from Lord of the Rings when we have someone who has competed in two whole fitness competitions right here. He knows much more about fitness, just ask him0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »There is no magic to eating within an hour of waking up.
There is no magic to fasted training.
You should make the decision based on how you feel when you exercise without eating (do you feel you can work harder on an empty stomach or do you feel like you need some food?).
^^^This, this and this.
Don't overthink it...0 -
I have a banana and coffee and out the door I go, works for me.0
-
You're so right! I giggled when he did his DIY energy drink, it was such basic stuff.TrickyDisco wrote: »Oooh oooh! I just watched a show on this last week where they did a live test across a bunch of men and women in the hopes to prove or disprove the theory of empty or full stomach workouts!!
There is a series in the UK called "Trust me I'm a doctor" new episode each week where they try to blow things out of the water, a bit like Mythbusters for medical stuff. I only just learned of the series and it started last week.
The first episode focuses on this exact question! From measuring fat burn rates in their groups, they showed that women burn more fat after exercise if they exercise on a full stomach vs empty, but for men it was the opposite. All the men in their groups burned more fat exercising on empty vs those men who ate first.
They ran the test over several days and controlled the exact calories going in etc....kinda like Mythbusters do....to make it as good a test as you can have I suppose. Laboratory conditions and such.
They brought in scientists to explain why, who theorised that it's a symptom of evolution, where woman's bodies are inherently designed to burn fat regardless of any other immediate nutrients being present during exercise. For men they theorised that they are rigged to burn carbohydrates, so you need to not have any present during exercise to get your body to burn fat. I'm simplifying but I believe that was the jist of their "take" on why it was happening in the tests. They also went on to say nobody had done a test like this before so it was new information that warranted further investigation.
So perhaps we'll see full blown studies on this in the months or years to come.
If you're interested you can watch the show for free on the online BBC player for a few more days I think.
I watched this too - with Dr Michael Mosley, his progs are always very interesting. They also analysed/tested protein shakes - two groups, one given protein shake and the other a placebo, muscle growth was around 3% after the test period for both groups. They concluded protein shakes are a great way to make expensive pee. And energy drinks are apparently little better than sugar-water. Highly recommended viewing.
"..and now we'll add a very special chemical substance to add those lovely electrolytes to our DIY energy drink... it's called table salt."
Lmao. Really like this show.
The antioxidants myth test they did was interesting too. I'm going to watch episode 2 tonight
0 -
You're so right! I giggled when he did his DIY energy drink, it was such basic stuff.TrickyDisco wrote: »Oooh oooh! I just watched a show on this last week where they did a live test across a bunch of men and women in the hopes to prove or disprove the theory of empty or full stomach workouts!!
There is a series in the UK called "Trust me I'm a doctor" new episode each week where they try to blow things out of the water, a bit like Mythbusters for medical stuff. I only just learned of the series and it started last week.
The first episode focuses on this exact question! From measuring fat burn rates in their groups, they showed that women burn more fat after exercise if they exercise on a full stomach vs empty, but for men it was the opposite. All the men in their groups burned more fat exercising on empty vs those men who ate first.
They ran the test over several days and controlled the exact calories going in etc....kinda like Mythbusters do....to make it as good a test as you can have I suppose. Laboratory conditions and such.
They brought in scientists to explain why, who theorised that it's a symptom of evolution, where woman's bodies are inherently designed to burn fat regardless of any other immediate nutrients being present during exercise. For men they theorised that they are rigged to burn carbohydrates, so you need to not have any present during exercise to get your body to burn fat. I'm simplifying but I believe that was the jist of their "take" on why it was happening in the tests. They also went on to say nobody had done a test like this before so it was new information that warranted further investigation.
So perhaps we'll see full blown studies on this in the months or years to come.
If you're interested you can watch the show for free on the online BBC player for a few more days I think.
I watched this too - with Dr Michael Mosley, his progs are always very interesting. They also analysed/tested protein shakes - two groups, one given protein shake and the other a placebo, muscle growth was around 3% after the test period for both groups. They concluded protein shakes are a great way to make expensive pee. And energy drinks are apparently little better than sugar-water. Highly recommended viewing.
"..and now we'll add a very special chemical substance to add those lovely electrolytes to our DIY energy drink... it's called table salt."
Lmao. Really like this show.
The antioxidants myth test they did was interesting too. I'm going to watch episode 2 tonight
Haha yeah, forgot about the 'special chemical substance' bit! Must watch tonight too.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions