Fasted Cardio Does NOT Enhance Fat Loss
Options
Azdak
Posts: 8,281 Member
This topic comes up periodically, so here is my new blog on the subject:
"Fasted cardio"--i.e. performing cardiovascular exercise early in the morning on an empty stomach-- is often touted as an effective weight loss strategy. I am not sure exactly when this idea originated, but it is especially popular with bodybuilders and some personal trainers.
On the surface, the theory seems to "make sense"--in a fasted state, blood sugar levels are lower, stored muscle glycogen tends to be lower, and you have to get your energy from somewhere, so--voila!--you tap directly into those love handles.
However, like many "common sense" recommendations for exercise and weight loss, the efficacy of "fasted cardio" is not supported by science and research.
The first reason is that, as I have stated numerous times, exercise metabolism does not exist in a vacuum. The acute changes that occur in your body in response to exercise represent only a small fraction of daily metabolism. They are not permanent and they are affected by what happens in the other 23 hours of the day.
Research has clearly shown that the amount or percentage of fat burned during an exercise session affects fat oxidation the rest of the day. In other words, if you burn more fat during a workout, you burn less the rest of the day and vice versa (assuming equal daily calorie intake). After 24 hours, there is no difference in total fat oxidation between individuals who burned more fat during a workout and those who burned more carbohydrate.
That alone is enough to dismiss any claimed benefits of "fasted cardio" (and the idea that "cardio burns muscle" as well).
However, if we look at the "micro" level, there is little evidence of increased fat burning as well.
Proponents of fasted cardio claim that ingestion of carbohydrates prior to exercise reduces the entry of fatty acids into the mitochondria (where fat is oxidized) and increased insulin results in less breakdown of fatty acids (lipolysis) from the tissues.
However, at least two studies have shown that, even though lipolysis was suppressed 22% after carbohydrate ingestion, there was no difference in fat oxdiation compared to those exercising in a "fasted state".
Another issue is the source of the fatty acids used during exercise. Muscle cells store droplets of lipids, called intramuscular triglycerides (IMTG). While stored adipose tissue may be "mobilized" during exercise, it is the IMTG that provide the majority of the fat that is actually used--up to 80% in trained individuals.
What that means is that during exercise, even in a fasted state, the body uses already-available stored fat in the muscles as the primary source of fat, NOT subcutaneous stored body fat. Body fat stores are affected primarily by daily energy balance.
What the research literature and science DOES support that, indirectly, exercising in a fasted state can impair fat loss, not facilitate it. Studies on preexercise feedings show that performance is impaired--especially for higher-intensity exercise--when one is in a hypoglycemic state. Lower intensity often means fewer calories burned, both during and after a workout.
Other studies have suggested that ingesting a mixed carbohydrate/protein beverage before exercise results in a higher post-exercise oxygen consumption--after both low-intensity and high-intensity workouts.
Despite the persistent popularity of "fasted cardio", the evidence clearly shows that it is not the best strategy, either for fat loss or training quality.
Now, there are many people who prefer exercising in a fasted state and feel that it improves their performance. Let's look at some of the possible reasons:
1. Many people say food makes them nauseous. This can be a legitimate reason, but it has nothing to do with the topic of "fat burning" or performance. It is always brought up in the discussion, but it is really irrelevant. I will say that there might be some disagreement about what constitutes "pre exercise feeding". We're not talking about a Grand Slam breakfast--a snack or replacement beverage of 100-200 calories is the "feeding".
2. Typical workouts are not that long or high in duration. Most of the studies I have read that study the effects of "fasted vs fed" feature workouts that are 60-120 min in length. The average 30-45 min morning workout is likely not long enough or hard enough to really tax your energy stores. So, one is not likely to see much of an effect one way or another.
3. Hard to prove a negative. If someone always exercises in a fasted state, they may not know what they are missing.
Especially based on #2, it is probably not that important who prefers to exercise in a fasted state to change their routine.
However, people should not exercise in a fasted state out of the misguided idea that it is better for fat loss.
"Fasted cardio"--i.e. performing cardiovascular exercise early in the morning on an empty stomach-- is often touted as an effective weight loss strategy. I am not sure exactly when this idea originated, but it is especially popular with bodybuilders and some personal trainers.
On the surface, the theory seems to "make sense"--in a fasted state, blood sugar levels are lower, stored muscle glycogen tends to be lower, and you have to get your energy from somewhere, so--voila!--you tap directly into those love handles.
However, like many "common sense" recommendations for exercise and weight loss, the efficacy of "fasted cardio" is not supported by science and research.
The first reason is that, as I have stated numerous times, exercise metabolism does not exist in a vacuum. The acute changes that occur in your body in response to exercise represent only a small fraction of daily metabolism. They are not permanent and they are affected by what happens in the other 23 hours of the day.
Research has clearly shown that the amount or percentage of fat burned during an exercise session affects fat oxidation the rest of the day. In other words, if you burn more fat during a workout, you burn less the rest of the day and vice versa (assuming equal daily calorie intake). After 24 hours, there is no difference in total fat oxidation between individuals who burned more fat during a workout and those who burned more carbohydrate.
That alone is enough to dismiss any claimed benefits of "fasted cardio" (and the idea that "cardio burns muscle" as well).
However, if we look at the "micro" level, there is little evidence of increased fat burning as well.
Proponents of fasted cardio claim that ingestion of carbohydrates prior to exercise reduces the entry of fatty acids into the mitochondria (where fat is oxidized) and increased insulin results in less breakdown of fatty acids (lipolysis) from the tissues.
However, at least two studies have shown that, even though lipolysis was suppressed 22% after carbohydrate ingestion, there was no difference in fat oxdiation compared to those exercising in a "fasted state".
Another issue is the source of the fatty acids used during exercise. Muscle cells store droplets of lipids, called intramuscular triglycerides (IMTG). While stored adipose tissue may be "mobilized" during exercise, it is the IMTG that provide the majority of the fat that is actually used--up to 80% in trained individuals.
What that means is that during exercise, even in a fasted state, the body uses already-available stored fat in the muscles as the primary source of fat, NOT subcutaneous stored body fat. Body fat stores are affected primarily by daily energy balance.
What the research literature and science DOES support that, indirectly, exercising in a fasted state can impair fat loss, not facilitate it. Studies on preexercise feedings show that performance is impaired--especially for higher-intensity exercise--when one is in a hypoglycemic state. Lower intensity often means fewer calories burned, both during and after a workout.
Other studies have suggested that ingesting a mixed carbohydrate/protein beverage before exercise results in a higher post-exercise oxygen consumption--after both low-intensity and high-intensity workouts.
Despite the persistent popularity of "fasted cardio", the evidence clearly shows that it is not the best strategy, either for fat loss or training quality.
Now, there are many people who prefer exercising in a fasted state and feel that it improves their performance. Let's look at some of the possible reasons:
1. Many people say food makes them nauseous. This can be a legitimate reason, but it has nothing to do with the topic of "fat burning" or performance. It is always brought up in the discussion, but it is really irrelevant. I will say that there might be some disagreement about what constitutes "pre exercise feeding". We're not talking about a Grand Slam breakfast--a snack or replacement beverage of 100-200 calories is the "feeding".
2. Typical workouts are not that long or high in duration. Most of the studies I have read that study the effects of "fasted vs fed" feature workouts that are 60-120 min in length. The average 30-45 min morning workout is likely not long enough or hard enough to really tax your energy stores. So, one is not likely to see much of an effect one way or another.
3. Hard to prove a negative. If someone always exercises in a fasted state, they may not know what they are missing.
Especially based on #2, it is probably not that important who prefers to exercise in a fasted state to change their routine.
However, people should not exercise in a fasted state out of the misguided idea that it is better for fat loss.
0
Replies
-
I go to the gym between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m. -it's the only time I can go. Most days, I don't eat beforehand, but that's because I don't feel like it or I don't have time (or I don't think about it). But, for the short time that I had a personal trainer, he did recommend that I eat something before working out - preferably something with protein - even if it was one of those Special K protein bars. Some mornings when I wake up, I do feel hungry. So I will eat a Special K bar then. Sometimes, if I don't eat something - I get the "shakes" or I "poop-out" early. However, the one thing I won't miss - any morning - is my coffee! If I don't drink a small cup of coffee, I am too sluggish in my workout. I don't know if it's "healthy" or not, but it gets me through my workout! :O0
-
My N=1 experiment says different. Especially when I do low intensity cardio fasted and I'm in ketosis. That study suggests people try different methods and find what works for them.0
-
"Fasted cardio"--i.e. performing cardiovascular exercise early in the morning on an empty stomach-- is often touted as an effective weight loss strategy.
Only if simultaneously wearing an HRM strap and a FitBit.0 -
Your article would be more persuasive if you provide references for the claims you made.0
-
Considering that this issue has had numerous amount of quality research pointing to the conclusions as the original poster has explained them I suggest you use google. This article is a good starting pointYour article would be more persuasive if you provide references for the claims you made.
Schoenfeld B. Does cardio after an overnight fast maximize fat loss? Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2011(33): 23-25.0 -
When an author mentions a study, it's common practice to cite the study. Part of the reason there's so much misinformation out there is because studies are often misinterpreted, or the studies aren't of high quality (non-randomized studies, insufficient study length, conflict of interest, etc). Sure, we could all learn about it on google, but that would defeat the purpose of the article.0
-
When an author mentions a study, it's common practice to cite the study. Part of the reason there's so much misinformation out there is because studies are often misinterpreted, or the studies aren't of high quality (non-randomized studies, insufficient study length, conflict of interest, etc). Sure, we could all learn about it on google, but that would defeat the purpose of the article.
These are informal articles that I do for fun, so sometimes I choose to cite studies, and sometimes I choose not to. This was a more general article, with commonly accepted basic information, and I was short on time, so I chose not to.
I only referenced 2 studies specifically, and that amounted to just 1 sentence in the entire article. You can disregard that sentence if you feel it lacks appropriate documentation, but it doesn't really change anything. The rest of the article comes from a general knowledge of exercise physiology and results of numerous textbooks, studies and articles published on the subject over the past 20 years, maybe longer.
I am curious why you chose only to focus on a trivial attribute of style. If you disagreed with the topic or had a question, why not just say so up front?0 -
So you're saying that I can eat a mac and cheese, then immediately afterwards, I go 'walk' on the treadmill for 40 min
vs
walking on the treadmill after 'fasting' for 8-12 hours(as soon as I wake up) for 40 min
have the exact same fat burning benefit?
I don't think so.
----
Tons of valid scientific research done that low impact exercises such as walking can be beneficial on an empty stomach on a fasted state(not running or high impact).
Just google it, tons of abstracts come up from reputable colleges and labs.0 -
" A study performed at Kansas State University and published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise showed that a kilogram of fat is burned sooner when exercise is done in the fasted state in the morning than when it's done later in the day. The researchers measured respiratory gas exchange, caloric expenditure and carbohydrate and fatty acid metabolism, and found that the amount of fat burned during aerobic exercise amounted to 67% of the total energy expenditure in the morning after a 12 hour fast. This is substantially higher than the 50% expenditure achieved when the same exercise was done later in the day or after eating.
A similar study from The Journal of Applied Physiology looked at the effects of aerobic exercise on lipid oxidation in fed versus fasted states. The researchers concluded, "our results support the hypothesis that endurance training enhances lipid oxidation in men after a 12 hour overnight fast." Yet another scientific paper, Optimizing Exercise for Fat Loss," reports, "The ability of exercise to selectively promote fat oxidation should be optimized if exercise is done during morning fasted metabolism."
Despite the fact that increased fat oxidation from fasted morning cardio is backed by research, the majority of scientists and exercise physiologists deny that that makes much of a difference to weight loss either way. Interestingly though, even the most dyed in the wool academics agree that you'll burn more fat in the fuel mix as compared to sugars. The real controversy lies in whether this fact has any impact on overall fat loss in the long run."
http://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/369.cfm0 -
So you're saying that I can eat a mac and cheese, then immediately afterwards, I go 'walk' on the treadmill for 40 min
vs
walking on the treadmill after 'fasting' for 8-12 hours(as soon as I wake up) for 40 min
have the exact same fat burning benefit?
I don't think so.
----
Tons of valid scientific research done that low impact exercises such as walking can be beneficial on an empty stomach on a fasted state(not running or high impact).
Just google it, tons of abstracts come up from reputable colleges and labs.
I believe he is saying that if you had your mac and cheese pre or post workout and had the totals cals for the day then no it doesn't matter. (which I agree with)
This sort of thing is majoring in the minors. Maybe worry about it, if you are looking to step on stage at <5% BF. If not, it's trivial.0 -
So you're saying that I can eat a mac and cheese, then immediately afterwards, I go 'walk' on the treadmill for 40 min
vs
walking on the treadmill after 'fasting' for 8-12 hours(as soon as I wake up) for 40 min
have the exact same fat burning benefit?
I don't think so.
----
Tons of valid scientific research done that low impact exercises such as walking can be beneficial on an empty stomach on a fasted state(not running or high impact).
Just google it, tons of abstracts come up from reputable colleges and labs.
Yes and no. The response and the effect on exercise performance will be a different following a large, high-fat meal prior to exercise vs fasting or vs other types of pre-exercise feeding. That is a completely different topic and not related to this one.
But when it comes to the DIRECT "fat burning benefit", the answer would be essentially "no difference", since there is no real direct "fat burning benefit" from the fuel substrate burned during exercise.0 -
Whether it burns more or not...I know if I eat a normal breakfast before I head out for my morning run then I had better plan a rest stop on the way or else "Runner's Trots" will come knocking. And those aren't fun...nope nope.0
-
So you're saying that I can eat a mac and cheese, then immediately afterwards, I go 'walk' on the treadmill for 40 min
vs
walking on the treadmill after 'fasting' for 8-12 hours(as soon as I wake up) for 40 min
have the exact same fat burning benefit?
I don't think so.
----
Tons of valid scientific research done that low impact exercises such as walking can be beneficial on an empty stomach on a fasted state(not running or high impact).
Just google it, tons of abstracts come up from reputable colleges and labs.
I believe he is saying that if you had your mac and cheese pre or post workout and had the totals cals for the day then no it doesn't matter. (which I agree with)
This sort of thing is majoring in the minors. Maybe worry about it, if you are looking to step on stage at <5% BF. If not, it's trivial.
Exactly.0 -
The name is a misnomer, but "Bonk Training" requires black coffee before you exercise....
http://www.superskinnyme.com/bonk-training.html
http://coachrobmuller.blogspot.com/2011/06/bonk-training.html
And one is to eat immediately following the up to 2 hours of cardio on black coffee and water only in the AM training.0 -
When an author mentions a study, it's common practice to cite the study. Part of the reason there's so much misinformation out there is because studies are often misinterpreted, or the studies aren't of high quality (non-randomized studies, insufficient study length, conflict of interest, etc). Sure, we could all learn about it on google, but that would defeat the purpose of the article.
Yep. No citations, I don't read it.0 -
But when it comes to the DIRECT "fat burning benefit", the answer would be essentially "no difference", since there is no real direct "fat burning benefit" from the fuel substrate burned during exercise.
How do you feel about Lyle McDonald's work in the light of this? I'm thinking specifically of the SFP?
Granted it's for lean people getting super-lean, but I thought it germain to this discussion.
He specifically calls for Met-con or Intervals fasted to get FFA into the bloodstream and then 20-40 mins of 3-4RPE LISS to use the mobilised FFA as fuel (to stop it being bound back into TG and re-stored in fat cells.).
I recently read the stubborn fat solution and found his ideas interesting. I guess you either disagree with them based on what you have said or think they are useful for such a marginal population they have no real relevance to the audience here? Interested to hear your thoughts.0 -
" A study performed at Kansas State University and published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise showed that a kilogram of fat is burned sooner when exercise is done in the fasted state in the morning than when it's done later in the day. The researchers measured respiratory gas exchange, caloric expenditure and carbohydrate and fatty acid metabolism, and found that the amount of fat burned during aerobic exercise amounted to 67% of the total energy expenditure in the morning after a 12 hour fast. This is substantially higher than the 50% expenditure achieved when the same exercise was done later in the day or after eating.
A similar study from The Journal of Applied Physiology looked at the effects of aerobic exercise on lipid oxidation in fed versus fasted states. The researchers concluded, "our results support the hypothesis that endurance training enhances lipid oxidation in men after a 12 hour overnight fast." Yet another scientific paper, Optimizing Exercise for Fat Loss," reports, "The ability of exercise to selectively promote fat oxidation should be optimized if exercise is done during morning fasted metabolism."
Despite the fact that increased fat oxidation from fasted morning cardio is backed by research, the majority of scientists and exercise physiologists deny that that makes much of a difference to weight loss either way. Interestingly though, even the most dyed in the wool academics agree that you'll burn more fat in the fuel mix as compared to sugars. The real controversy lies in whether this fact has any impact on overall fat loss in the long run."
http://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/369.cfm
The last paragraph you cite kind of answers your question. I don't know when Mr Venuto wrote the article that you are copying from, but the increased use of metabolic chambers in recent years has helped enlarge our understanding of this topic. Venuto is usually balanced and grounded in his discussions, and I can't read the whole article, but it reads as though he is highlighting the "controversy" aspect a little more than it actually exists.
Here is the relevant part of my article:The acute changes that occur in your body in response to exercise represent only a small fraction of daily metabolism. They are not permanent and they are affected by what happens in the other 23 hours of the day.
That's it. You can't just assume that because fat oxidation increases during a workout session that the effect is permanent and somehow "walled off" from what happens in your body the rest of the day. (And it always bears repeating that, even if the effect were permanent, the average difference in the total amount of fat oxidized would likely be less than 1/2 an ounce).
So, yes, you can use google or PubMed and come up with many, many studies that show that different manipulations -- pre-exercise feeding, workout sequencing, training method, etc--can affect the fuel substrate mix during a workout session and push the RQ in a different direction. Furthermore, you can engage in a type of training that results in actual physiologic changes that promote fat oxidation in the muscle. However, despite changes in the acute response to exercise such as those you cite, there is still NO CHANGE in 24 fat oxidation--either the total amount or the substrate mix. So, in my opinion, with any study that looks only at acute responses--whether it is fat burning, or amino-acid oxidation, or even other responses such as insulin and cortisol--one has to exercise extreme caution when concluding that the acute response actually has a long-term effect.
At this point, the only certain way we know to increase fat oxidation is to maintain a negative calorie balance.
If you want to read a pretty thorough review of 24 hr studies, you can try to get a full copy of this:
Exercise improves fat metabolism in muscle but does not
increase 24-h fat oxidation
Edward L Melanson, Ph.D.1,2, Paul S. MacLean, Ph.D.1,2, and James O. Hill, Ph.D.2,3
1Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver, School of
Medicine, Denver, CO
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2009 April ; 37(2): 93–101
And there is this golden oldie:
http://alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-part-2-false-hopes-for-fasted-cardio.html
Aragon lists a number of sources that are relevant to my original article, so those who were critical about a lack of references can use this list.0 -
Thanks for this post Azdak.
This part--The acute changes that occur in your body in response to exercise represent only a small fraction of daily metabolism. They are not permanent and they are affected by what happens in the other 23 hours of the day.
-- is a great one and in my opinion, people tend to do this with other aspects of fitness and nutrition, and then make conclusions that aren't necessarily correct when you zoom out and look at what happens over weeks and months, rather than what happens in an hour.0 -
But when it comes to the DIRECT "fat burning benefit", the answer would be essentially "no difference", since there is no real direct "fat burning benefit" from the fuel substrate burned during exercise.
How do you feel about Lyle McDonald's work in the light of this? I'm thinking specifically of the SFP?
Granted it's for lean people getting super-lean, but I thought it germain to this discussion.
He specifically calls for Met-con or Intervals fasted to get FFA into the bloodstream and then 20-40 mins of 3-4RPE LISS to use the mobilised FFA as fuel (to stop it being bound back into TG and re-stored in fat cells.).
I recently read the stubborn fat solution and found his ideas interesting. I guess you either disagree with them based on what you have said or think they are useful for such a marginal population they have no real relevance to the audience here? Interested to hear your thoughts.
Your second-to-last sentence. I think Lyle writes in detail in one of his articles about the different fat-loss challenges faced by the obese vs those already lean looking to get leaner. In the former, the challenge is fat oxidation--there is plenty of fat available to use, but fat oxidation is impaired. In the latter, the challenge is fat mobilization--the trained person with low levels of body fat can now oxidize fat just fine--they just have trouble mobilizing the remaining fat stores. And that's where the manipulations you describe come into play. I'm pretty sure he has said much the same thing in some of the articles on his website.
So, no, I don't disagree with Lyle McDonald at all. The problem (maybe too strong a word)--and I have said this a lot--is that, too often, our discussions on training, health, fitness, fat loss, etc, get skewed to the perspective of the specialized performer. In this case, the perspective of bodybuilders tends to be imposed on the discussion as the "ideal" for everyone. And that gets people either confused or they waste a lot of time and energy doing things that are meaningless--for them. (And I don't mean that as a slam at bodybuilders--the same problem exists in discussions about runners and other sports as well).
So, yeah, I choose to just bypass that entirely. I figured if anyone was interested enough or knowledgeable enough to bring that up in comments, I would address it then--as you did, and as I have
0 -
:flowerforyou: (For the MFPmember who requested citations to articles.)0
-
The name is a misnomer, but "Bonk Training" requires black coffee before you exercise....
http://www.superskinnyme.com/bonk-training.html
http://coachrobmuller.blogspot.com/2011/06/bonk-training.html
And one is to eat immediately following the up to 2 hours of cardio on black coffee and water only in the AM training.
This is more related to performance training, which is not always consistent with best practices for weight loss.
The first citation appears to have an older article that, from what I read, was not consistent with current consensus or current research results.
Specifically:“If I have a patient who’s trying to lose weight- cyclist or not- I have him ride 20-30 minutes before breakfast on a stationary bike at about 60 percent of max heart rate,” says Pruitt. “This ignites your fat-burning metabolism, and it stays lit during the day.”
The Melanson review article I listed in another comment pretty conclusively refutes that idea.
He also cites studies/strategies that call for 90-120 minute cycling workouts.
So I can definitely support the idea that riding a stationary bike in a fasted state for 120 min a day at 60% effort will generally have a positive effect on fat loss.
But eat one little energy bar beforehand, and you're totally screwed--your muscles will be wasted and you'll have a pot belly by the end of the ride.0 -
Well, that's too bad. I do fasted cardio because I'll throw up if my tummy isn't empty. It would nice if a side effect was enhanced fat loss.0
-
Thanks for the post Azdak. I will look more into this objectively and see if there's any other studies that may refute what's posted, but I'm sure that the article is quite accurate.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Your article would be more persuasive if you provide references for the claims you made.
TL;DR, would love to see the research articles the blogger used to reach these conclusions.
This is my issue with bloggers, long on content, short on cited fact.0 -
Great thread.
Most people tend to get caught up in these small little details while forgetting to look at the big picture. I always train in the morning, fasted. Unless I'm doing a long run in which case I do have a small snack. This is what has worked for me and how I feel I perform best, and has absolutely nothing to do with what I perceive to be enhanced fat loss.
Also just wanted to throw in.....protein in and of itself is not necessarily the greatest pre-workout snack as protein does not provide the body with energy. I saw an earlier comment that referenced that and just wanted to mention it for others that may be reading 0 -
It actually never made sense to me. I figured you're burning calories. Does it matter if they're new or old calories?
Anyway, on weekends I do exercise before eating, but mostly because I prefer that when possible for how I feel. I seem to have more energy for some reason and I'm rarely hungry until I've been awake for at least three hours.0 -
All I know is that I tried it and nearly passed out. Never again. Bacon, eggs, and toast please!0
-
But when it comes to the DIRECT "fat burning benefit", the answer would be essentially "no difference", since there is no real direct "fat burning benefit" from the fuel substrate burned during exercise.
How do you feel about Lyle McDonald's work in the light of this? I'm thinking specifically of the SFP?
Granted it's for lean people getting super-lean, but I thought it germain to this discussion.
He specifically calls for Met-con or Intervals fasted to get FFA into the bloodstream and then 20-40 mins of 3-4RPE LISS to use the mobilised FFA as fuel (to stop it being bound back into TG and re-stored in fat cells.).
I recently read the stubborn fat solution and found his ideas interesting. I guess you either disagree with them based on what you have said or think they are useful for such a marginal population they have no real relevance to the audience here? Interested to hear your thoughts.
Your second-to-last sentence. I think Lyle writes in detail in one of his articles about the different fat-loss challenges faced by the obese vs those already lean looking to get leaner. In the former, the challenge is fat oxidation--there is plenty of fat available to use, but fat oxidation is impaired. In the latter, the challenge is fat mobilization--the trained person with low levels of body fat can now oxidize fat just fine--they just have trouble mobilizing the remaining fat stores. And that's where the manipulations you describe come into play. I'm pretty sure he has said much the same thing in some of the articles on his website.
So, no, I don't disagree with Lyle McDonald at all. The problem (maybe too strong a word)--and I have said this a lot--is that, too often, our discussions on training, health, fitness, fat loss, etc, get skewed to the perspective of the specialized performer. In this case, the perspective of bodybuilders tends to be imposed on the discussion as the "ideal" for everyone. And that gets people either confused or they waste a lot of time and energy doing things that are meaningless--for them. (And I don't mean that as a slam at bodybuilders--the same problem exists in discussions about runners and other sports as well).
So, yeah, I choose to just bypass that entirely. I figured if anyone was interested enough or knowledgeable enough to bring that up in comments, I would address it then--as you did, and as I have
Was going to make this point.
Fasted cardio has no additional benefits above and beyond the calorie burn for fat people trying to become less fat.
For lean people trying to get leaner, there are real benefits. In my experience, the results are actually fairly dramatic too; in the hard to mobilize stubborn fat pockets there isn't actually a lot of fat, its just glopped together. Mobilizing it makes it shrink quite rapidly.0 -
Huh... I just don't worry about it and exercise when I find I have time and before eating anything with Dairy... because NO ONE wants to be in the gym with me then.0
-
Thank you. It's always a pleasure to read a well written and persuasive piece, with or without citations0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions