Running
Replies
-
I think something seasoned runners know that new runners don't know is that the 1st mile always $ucks. Your body has to warm up, your mind has to stop telling you to quit, your knees have to stop complaining, the doughnuts have to get out of earshot... You get the idea.
If you're a new runner - it takes a long time before you ever get past the first mile or so. That means that each run is not really that much fun.
I love my runs now. When I was getting back into shape, not so much. I knew it would get better though. new folks have to give it time - assuming they want to be a runner.5 -
As several people have mentioned, running = calories out. So it's going to help with weight loss by increasing your calorie deficit (assuming you don't eat the calories back).
If the sole reason you want to run is to speed up your weight loss though I probably wouldn't recommend it. I think it's easier to be consistent if you actually enjoy the exercise you're doing.0 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »I think something seasoned runners know that new runners don't know is that the 1st mile always $ucks. Your body has to warm up, your mind has to stop telling you to quit, your knees have to stop complaining, the doughnuts have to get out of earshot... You get the idea.
If you're a new runner - it takes a long time before you ever get past the first mile or so. That means that each run is not really that much fun.
I love my runs now. When I was getting back into shape, not so much. I knew it would get better though. new folks have to give it time - assuming they want to be a runner.
My morning route takes my past Krispy Kreme doughnuts and when that Hot N Now sign is lit, it is like doughnuts screaming at me.1 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »I think something seasoned runners know that new runners don't know is that the 1st mile always $ucks. Your body has to warm up, your mind has to stop telling you to quit, your knees have to stop complaining, the doughnuts have to get out of earshot... You get the idea.
If you're a new runner - it takes a long time before you ever get past the first mile or so. That means that each run is not really that much fun.
I love my runs now. When I was getting back into shape, not so much. I knew it would get better though. new folks have to give it time - assuming they want to be a runner.
Having "re-started" running numerous times in my life, the thing I hate most about it is the DOMS in my calves for the first couple weeks. It's enough to make me not want to quit running this time, just because I don't want to go through that yet again.
And yep, the first mile is always the worst mile.0 -
As I used to be an emotional eater but now manage stress with exercise, I find EVERY exercise helpful for weight loss.
Good sleep is important as well. I'm sleep deprived today and am fighting the munchies hard.1 -
Here is a good article on what exercise can do for you:
https://runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a25400990/running-anti-aging-effects/?source=nl&utm_source=nl_rnw&utm_medium=email&date=120518&src=nl&utm_campaign=15310353&utm_term=New%20Day%20160 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »I think something seasoned runners know that new runners don't know is that the 1st mile always $ucks. Your body has to warm up, your mind has to stop telling you to quit, your knees have to stop complaining, the doughnuts have to get out of earshot... You get the idea.
If you're a new runner - it takes a long time before you ever get past the first mile or so. That means that each run is not really that much fun.
I love my runs now. When I was getting back into shape, not so much. I knew it would get better though. new folks have to give it time - assuming they want to be a runner.
My morning route takes my past Krispy Kreme doughnuts and when that Hot N Now sign is lit, it is like doughnuts screaming at me.
I know, right? We have a local doughnut shop that I run close to in the mornings. This past run the wind was blowing the smell of doughnuts my way - O.M.G. - I wanted to stop and eat a dozen.0 -
But you resisted the donuts, your self control is mighty, or did you just not have any money with you?
2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
I burn a heck of a lot more than 700 calories running 3 times a week. And many people run five times a week. The saying is you can't outrun a bad diet - and that's true to a point, unless you're spending hours running every day, you can't outrun a whole Bloomin' Onion plus giant dessert every day - but you can outrun a couple slices of pizza or a serving of fries which you otherwise wouldn't fit in your calories. The general estimate is about 100 calories a mile, so my 15 miles or so a week - considered low mileage - equals a couple of pounds a month.
If you're running 15 mile per week then of course your're burning off more than 700 calories. We're not talking about someone running 15 miles per week, we're talking about someone starting out doing C25K, doing a very slow (walk/jog) 20 minute session so would be lucky to cover 4 or maybe 5 miles per week. The situations are completely different.
As to your second point, can you honestly tell me that you're consistently doing 15 mile per week and not increasing your calorie intake at all to fuel those runs? That you're knocking out 3x5 mile (or 5x3 mile or whatever) and not eating back a significant portion if not all of those additional calories??
So what you're saying is that running lets you eat an extra 300-400 calories on days while still maintaining the same calorie deficit? Therefore your rate of loss remains unchanged, thus running doesn't increase the speed at which you lose weight.
The alternative being you do not eat those extra 300-400 calories turning your correctly low base calories into an unhealthy very low base calorie intake.
Understand, I'm not trying to convince people not to exercise. There are clear health and fitness benefits to getting active. But telling people that running for 20 minutes 3 times per week will yield a noticeable increase in weight loss is just misleading.
Even if they resist the extra hunger from working out and manage to stay on the rails and not launch into a binge from feeling deprived, the additional calories burned just aren't enough to make a significant difference. Then, not seeing the expected accelerated drop in the scales they think 'why bother' and give up thereby missing out on the real benefits that come for exercise, being fitter and healthier.
Even if you do manage to become active enough that you're burning sufficient calories that it would have a marked impact on fat loss I highly doubt you could maintain that level of activity without a corresponding increase in calorie intake, which again renders the increase in rate of weigh loss back to negligible.
The situations are not completely different. No one runs c25k just to run the one minute intervals at the beginning of the program. The whole point of c25k is to become a runner. After finishing it, which takes only 8 weeks, you can run 30 minutes consistently, and increasing from that point is easy. Fifteen miles a week is a tiny amount to run, most runners run far more. I'm a 3-runs a week 50 year old with injuries, and I run 15 miles a week.
Also, of course I am fueling my runs. I'm currently in maintenance but when I was eating at a deficit I also fueled my runs. If you read the thread, you will note that I said in my very first post that speeding up weight loss by eating at an unsustainable deficit is not a good idea. People not under a doctor's supervision should aim to lose no more than about 1% of their weight per week at the maximum, and a more modest goal is a better idea for many people.
But that hardly means those calories are wasted. Losing weight by eating 1500 calories a day with a 500 calorie deficit is very, very different from losing weight eating 2000 calories a day plus 500 calories a day of exercise equaling a 500 calorie deficit. Run enough, and you don't have to eat like a person on a diet at all. Five hundred calories a day, very doable by someone who has only been running a few months, means a whole extra meal to most people in a deficit. Or a bunch of salad dressing and a small dessert. Or whatever the heck they want to eat.
When I ran my half marathon I literally couldn't physically eat enough to make up for the calories I burned. It was pretty groovy to eat a huge steak and a piece of pie and go to bed at a thousand calorie deficit and get up the next day and start eating to make up for it. I ended up losing two pounds in a week despite eating everything I wanted. Would I advise running marathons just to pig out? Depends on how much you like pigging out. But if it turns out you love running, AND you love food, the combination works amazingly.
Not to mention - I've been in maintenance eight months, and stayed within a two pound range all that time. BUT my waist is smaller, my body is tighter, my percentage of fat is down. That's because I'm working out hard on a daily basis, so my body is continuing to recomp even when I'm not in a deficit.1 -
Too put this all into perspective: MFP says I should aim to eat 1870 calories to lose 1-2 lbs/week. I am 55 and currently weigh 188. I ran this morning and my watch said I burned 555 calories. Therefore I can eat 2425 and still lose 1-2 lbs per week. I can eat quite a lot and still not get to 2425. This will make my deficit larger and I'll lose more. I don't run on Fridays so tomorrow I can only eat 1870. If I stay under that I'm good. If not then I used up some of the extra from the day before. I'm still on track to lose 1-2 lbs/week. I can also plan ahead. Weekends we like to eat out. I'll run 7-8 miles in the morning so I can eat a little more calories. I love to run so this is easy for me. It won't be for anyone who hates to run. I am also running first thing in the morning before eating. This burns more fat calories since there isn't as much glycogen in my muscles. I have lost 33 lbs and 5 inches from my waist.1
-
twatson4936 wrote: »Too put this all into perspective: MFP says I should aim to eat 1870 calories to lose 1-2 lbs/week. I am 55 and currently weigh 188. I ran this morning and my watch said I burned 555 calories. Therefore I can eat 2425 and still lose 1-2 lbs per week. I can eat quite a lot and still not get to 2425. This will make my deficit larger and I'll lose more. I don't run on Fridays so tomorrow I can only eat 1870. If I stay under that I'm good. If not then I used up some of the extra from the day before. I'm still on track to lose 1-2 lbs/week. I can also plan ahead. Weekends we like to eat out. I'll run 7-8 miles in the morning so I can eat a little more calories. I love to run so this is easy for me. It won't be for anyone who hates to run. I am also running first thing in the morning before eating. This burns more fat calories since there isn't as much glycogen in my muscles. I have lost 33 lbs and 5 inches from my waist.
Good post, except for that last part. That's not the way it works.3 -
A 2010 study published in "The Journal of Physiology" suggests that performing cardio exercise such as running for 30 minutes or less on an empty stomach, burns more fat than running with a full tummy. Though the reasons for this aren't fully understood, it is thought that more fat is burned during fasting running because of a lack of carbs, which the body will usually burn off first.1
-
twatson4936 wrote: »A 2010 study published in "The Journal of Physiology" suggests that performing cardio exercise such as running for 30 minutes or less on an empty stomach, burns more fat than running with a full tummy. Though the reasons for this aren't fully understood, it is thought that more fat is burned during fasting running because of a lack of carbs, which the body will usually burn off first.
That is true... but it's not burning stored fat (i.e. love handles or whatever). It's burning, IIRC, intramuscular fat... fat which is restored as part of the recovery process post-workout. So the added fat burning that comes from fasted cardio isn't actually of any benefit.0 -
twatson4936 wrote: »A 2010 study published in "The Journal of Physiology" suggests that performing cardio exercise such as running for 30 minutes or less on an empty stomach, burns more fat than running with a full tummy. Though the reasons for this aren't fully understood, it is thought that more fat is burned during fasting running because of a lack of carbs, which the body will usually burn off first.
Are you referring to this study? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20837645
This was a six-week study and it involved a hyper-caloric diet. I don't know if we can draw definite conclusions for periods that are longer than that and don't involve us eating 30% over our normal calorie needs.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »
I burn a heck of a lot more than 700 calories running 3 times a week. And many people run five times a week. The saying is you can't outrun a bad diet - and that's true to a point, unless you're spending hours running every day, you can't outrun a whole Bloomin' Onion plus giant dessert every day - but you can outrun a couple slices of pizza or a serving of fries which you otherwise wouldn't fit in your calories. The general estimate is about 100 calories a mile, so my 15 miles or so a week - considered low mileage - equals a couple of pounds a month.
If you're running 15 mile per week then of course your're burning off more than 700 calories. We're not talking about someone running 15 miles per week, we're talking about someone starting out doing C25K, doing a very slow (walk/jog) 20 minute session so would be lucky to cover 4 or maybe 5 miles per week. The situations are completely different.
As to your second point, can you honestly tell me that you're consistently doing 15 mile per week and not increasing your calorie intake at all to fuel those runs? That you're knocking out 3x5 mile (or 5x3 mile or whatever) and not eating back a significant portion if not all of those additional calories??
So what you're saying is that running lets you eat an extra 300-400 calories on days while still maintaining the same calorie deficit? Therefore your rate of loss remains unchanged, thus running doesn't increase the speed at which you lose weight.
The alternative being you do not eat those extra 300-400 calories turning your correctly low base calories into an unhealthy very low base calorie intake.
Understand, I'm not trying to convince people not to exercise. There are clear health and fitness benefits to getting active. But telling people that running for 20 minutes 3 times per week will yield a noticeable increase in weight loss is just misleading.
Even if they resist the extra hunger from working out and manage to stay on the rails and not launch into a binge from feeling deprived, the additional calories burned just aren't enough to make a significant difference. Then, not seeing the expected accelerated drop in the scales they think 'why bother' and give up thereby missing out on the real benefits that come for exercise, being fitter and healthier.
Even if you do manage to become active enough that you're burning sufficient calories that it would have a marked impact on fat loss I highly doubt you could maintain that level of activity without a corresponding increase in calorie intake, which again renders the increase in rate of weigh loss back to negligible.
The situations are not completely different. No one runs c25k just to run the one minute intervals at the beginning of the program. The whole point of c25k is to become a runner. After finishing it, which takes only 8 weeks, you can run 30 minutes consistently, and increasing from that point is easy. Fifteen miles a week is a tiny amount to run, most runners run far more. I'm a 3-runs a week 50 year old with injuries, and I run 15 miles a week.
Also, of course I am fueling my runs. I'm currently in maintenance but when I was eating at a deficit I also fueled my runs. If you read the thread, you will note that I said in my very first post that speeding up weight loss by eating at an unsustainable deficit is not a good idea. People not under a doctor's supervision should aim to lose no more than about 1% of their weight per week at the maximum, and a more modest goal is a better idea for many people.
But that hardly means those calories are wasted. Losing weight by eating 1500 calories a day with a 500 calorie deficit is very, very different from losing weight eating 2000 calories a day plus 500 calories a day of exercise equaling a 500 calorie deficit. Run enough, and you don't have to eat like a person on a diet at all. Five hundred calories a day, very doable by someone who has only been running a few months, means a whole extra meal to most people in a deficit. Or a bunch of salad dressing and a small dessert. Or whatever the heck they want to eat.
When I ran my half marathon I literally couldn't physically eat enough to make up for the calories I burned. It was pretty groovy to eat a huge steak and a piece of pie and go to bed at a thousand calorie deficit and get up the next day and start eating to make up for it. I ended up losing two pounds in a week despite eating everything I wanted. Would I advise running marathons just to pig out? Depends on how much you like pigging out. But if it turns out you love running, AND you love food, the combination works amazingly.
Not to mention - I've been in maintenance eight months, and stayed within a two pound range all that time. BUT my waist is smaller, my body is tighter, my percentage of fat is down. That's because I'm working out hard on a daily basis, so my body is continuing to recomp even when I'm not in a deficit.
Gotta agree with this, on the tail end of marathon training I have to visit a buffet weekly in order to not look like a skeleton. I was the type of person before that would go out to eat and could never finish half my plate, since I’ve been running I’ve been irritated with standard restaurants because at the end of the meal + appetizers+ drinks + dessert im still starving.0 -
Now I am wondering what happens with me when I am fat adapted and run fasted while being in or near ketosis?0
-
nevermind. That was meant to be funny, but I don't think it came out that way.2
-
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »
I burn a heck of a lot more than 700 calories running 3 times a week. And many people run five times a week. The saying is you can't outrun a bad diet - and that's true to a point, unless you're spending hours running every day, you can't outrun a whole Bloomin' Onion plus giant dessert every day - but you can outrun a couple slices of pizza or a serving of fries which you otherwise wouldn't fit in your calories. The general estimate is about 100 calories a mile, so my 15 miles or so a week - considered low mileage - equals a couple of pounds a month.
If you're running 15 mile per week then of course your're burning off more than 700 calories. We're not talking about someone running 15 miles per week, we're talking about someone starting out doing C25K, doing a very slow (walk/jog) 20 minute session so would be lucky to cover 4 or maybe 5 miles per week. The situations are completely different.
As to your second point, can you honestly tell me that you're consistently doing 15 mile per week and not increasing your calorie intake at all to fuel those runs? That you're knocking out 3x5 mile (or 5x3 mile or whatever) and not eating back a significant portion if not all of those additional calories??
So what you're saying is that running lets you eat an extra 300-400 calories on days while still maintaining the same calorie deficit? Therefore your rate of loss remains unchanged, thus running doesn't increase the speed at which you lose weight.
The alternative being you do not eat those extra 300-400 calories turning your correctly low base calories into an unhealthy very low base calorie intake.
Understand, I'm not trying to convince people not to exercise. There are clear health and fitness benefits to getting active. But telling people that running for 20 minutes 3 times per week will yield a noticeable increase in weight loss is just misleading.
Even if they resist the extra hunger from working out and manage to stay on the rails and not launch into a binge from feeling deprived, the additional calories burned just aren't enough to make a significant difference. Then, not seeing the expected accelerated drop in the scales they think 'why bother' and give up thereby missing out on the real benefits that come for exercise, being fitter and healthier.
Even if you do manage to become active enough that you're burning sufficient calories that it would have a marked impact on fat loss I highly doubt you could maintain that level of activity without a corresponding increase in calorie intake, which again renders the increase in rate of weigh loss back to negligible.
The situations are not completely different. No one runs c25k just to run the one minute intervals at the beginning of the program. The whole point of c25k is to become a runner. After finishing it, which takes only 8 weeks, you can run 30 minutes consistently, and increasing from that point is easy. Fifteen miles a week is a tiny amount to run, most runners run far more. I'm a 3-runs a week 50 year old with injuries, and I run 15 miles a week.
Also, of course I am fueling my runs. I'm currently in maintenance but when I was eating at a deficit I also fueled my runs. If you read the thread, you will note that I said in my very first post that speeding up weight loss by eating at an unsustainable deficit is not a good idea. People not under a doctor's supervision should aim to lose no more than about 1% of their weight per week at the maximum, and a more modest goal is a better idea for many people.
But that hardly means those calories are wasted. Losing weight by eating 1500 calories a day with a 500 calorie deficit is very, very different from losing weight eating 2000 calories a day plus 500 calories a day of exercise equaling a 500 calorie deficit. Run enough, and you don't have to eat like a person on a diet at all. Five hundred calories a day, very doable by someone who has only been running a few months, means a whole extra meal to most people in a deficit. Or a bunch of salad dressing and a small dessert. Or whatever the heck they want to eat.
When I ran my half marathon I literally couldn't physically eat enough to make up for the calories I burned. It was pretty groovy to eat a huge steak and a piece of pie and go to bed at a thousand calorie deficit and get up the next day and start eating to make up for it. I ended up losing two pounds in a week despite eating everything I wanted. Would I advise running marathons just to pig out? Depends on how much you like pigging out. But if it turns out you love running, AND you love food, the combination works amazingly.
Not to mention - I've been in maintenance eight months, and stayed within a two pound range all that time. BUT my waist is smaller, my body is tighter, my percentage of fat is down. That's because I'm working out hard on a daily basis, so my body is continuing to recomp even when I'm not in a deficit.
Gotta agree with this, on the tail end of marathon training I have to visit a buffet weekly in order to not look like a skeleton. I was the type of person before that would go out to eat and could never finish half my plate, since I’ve been running I’ve been irritated with standard restaurants because at the end of the meal + appetizers+ drinks + dessert im still starving.
I think I'll have the opposite problem. My first half I gained about 5lbs... the runger is real! I have to work really hard not to gain when my long run gets into double figures.1 -
There are studies that prove your point too so who is right? I get up and run, then get breakfast. It fits my schedule and starts my day off right.1
-
TavistockToad wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »
I burn a heck of a lot more than 700 calories running 3 times a week. And many people run five times a week. The saying is you can't outrun a bad diet - and that's true to a point, unless you're spending hours running every day, you can't outrun a whole Bloomin' Onion plus giant dessert every day - but you can outrun a couple slices of pizza or a serving of fries which you otherwise wouldn't fit in your calories. The general estimate is about 100 calories a mile, so my 15 miles or so a week - considered low mileage - equals a couple of pounds a month.
If you're running 15 mile per week then of course your're burning off more than 700 calories. We're not talking about someone running 15 miles per week, we're talking about someone starting out doing C25K, doing a very slow (walk/jog) 20 minute session so would be lucky to cover 4 or maybe 5 miles per week. The situations are completely different.
As to your second point, can you honestly tell me that you're consistently doing 15 mile per week and not increasing your calorie intake at all to fuel those runs? That you're knocking out 3x5 mile (or 5x3 mile or whatever) and not eating back a significant portion if not all of those additional calories??
So what you're saying is that running lets you eat an extra 300-400 calories on days while still maintaining the same calorie deficit? Therefore your rate of loss remains unchanged, thus running doesn't increase the speed at which you lose weight.
The alternative being you do not eat those extra 300-400 calories turning your correctly low base calories into an unhealthy very low base calorie intake.
Understand, I'm not trying to convince people not to exercise. There are clear health and fitness benefits to getting active. But telling people that running for 20 minutes 3 times per week will yield a noticeable increase in weight loss is just misleading.
Even if they resist the extra hunger from working out and manage to stay on the rails and not launch into a binge from feeling deprived, the additional calories burned just aren't enough to make a significant difference. Then, not seeing the expected accelerated drop in the scales they think 'why bother' and give up thereby missing out on the real benefits that come for exercise, being fitter and healthier.
Even if you do manage to become active enough that you're burning sufficient calories that it would have a marked impact on fat loss I highly doubt you could maintain that level of activity without a corresponding increase in calorie intake, which again renders the increase in rate of weigh loss back to negligible.
The situations are not completely different. No one runs c25k just to run the one minute intervals at the beginning of the program. The whole point of c25k is to become a runner. After finishing it, which takes only 8 weeks, you can run 30 minutes consistently, and increasing from that point is easy. Fifteen miles a week is a tiny amount to run, most runners run far more. I'm a 3-runs a week 50 year old with injuries, and I run 15 miles a week.
Also, of course I am fueling my runs. I'm currently in maintenance but when I was eating at a deficit I also fueled my runs. If you read the thread, you will note that I said in my very first post that speeding up weight loss by eating at an unsustainable deficit is not a good idea. People not under a doctor's supervision should aim to lose no more than about 1% of their weight per week at the maximum, and a more modest goal is a better idea for many people.
But that hardly means those calories are wasted. Losing weight by eating 1500 calories a day with a 500 calorie deficit is very, very different from losing weight eating 2000 calories a day plus 500 calories a day of exercise equaling a 500 calorie deficit. Run enough, and you don't have to eat like a person on a diet at all. Five hundred calories a day, very doable by someone who has only been running a few months, means a whole extra meal to most people in a deficit. Or a bunch of salad dressing and a small dessert. Or whatever the heck they want to eat.
When I ran my half marathon I literally couldn't physically eat enough to make up for the calories I burned. It was pretty groovy to eat a huge steak and a piece of pie and go to bed at a thousand calorie deficit and get up the next day and start eating to make up for it. I ended up losing two pounds in a week despite eating everything I wanted. Would I advise running marathons just to pig out? Depends on how much you like pigging out. But if it turns out you love running, AND you love food, the combination works amazingly.
Not to mention - I've been in maintenance eight months, and stayed within a two pound range all that time. BUT my waist is smaller, my body is tighter, my percentage of fat is down. That's because I'm working out hard on a daily basis, so my body is continuing to recomp even when I'm not in a deficit.
Gotta agree with this, on the tail end of marathon training I have to visit a buffet weekly in order to not look like a skeleton. I was the type of person before that would go out to eat and could never finish half my plate, since I’ve been running I’ve been irritated with standard restaurants because at the end of the meal + appetizers+ drinks + dessert im still starving.
I think I'll have the opposite problem. My first half I gained about 5lbs... the runger is real! I have to work really hard not to gain when my long run gets into double figures.
Yeah, me too. I have to count calories when I'm marathon training because I'll want to eat anything and everything. My appetite is usually suppressed on the day on my long run, but then I'll be ravenous for 2-3 days afterwards.0 -
twatson4936 wrote: »There are studies that prove your point too so who is right? I get up and run, then get breakfast. It fits my schedule and starts my day off right.
Given that my study appears to clarify your study, and I know the source of my study vs your study being unsourced, I'm going to say I'm right. But ultimately, we all believe what we want to believe, right?
And to be clear... I didn't say not to do it. I simply said that there wasn't any fat loss/body comp benefits to fasted cardio that don't also exist for fed cardio.1 -
Yes we tend to believe what we want to. It's s shame studies vary so much. I can only go with my own results. I took a break from running due to Plantar Fasciitis and got to 218. I started counting calories running in the mornings and I am now 188. The biggest change has been my pudgy belly, nearly gone. I have gone from hole #2 on my belt to hole #6. I need a new belt. I have to wear a belt because my size 35 waist pants fall to the floor with little effort.
Just for fun here is another bit I found:
Researchers in Japan have found that fat oxidation occurs if exercisers work out before breakfast. There’s only good to be said for fat oxidation, the process by which large lipid (i.e. fat) molecules break down, which, in addition to being the kind of weight loss most people want, may also reduce type 2 diabetes. One Belgian study found that eating a high-caloric diet had no effect on fasting exercisers but caused those who worked out after eating to gain weight (good news for those of us who like to have our cake and exercise too). Exercising before breakfast mimics the fasting state and can help kick start weight loss. If you have low blood sugar, eat a banana or a small energy bar 10-15 minutes before exercise.0 -
twatson4936 wrote: »A 2010 study published in "The Journal of Physiology" suggests that performing cardio exercise such as running for 30 minutes or less on an empty stomach, burns more fat than running with a full tummy. Though the reasons for this aren't fully understood, it is thought that more fat is burned during fasting running because of a lack of carbs, which the body will usually burn off first.
No.
Research review, plenty of studies cited/linked: https://weightology.net/fasted-cardio-an-undeserved-good-reputation/0 -
Here is the source:
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/208376450 -
Interesting discussion!0
-
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions