Fasted Cardio Does NOT Enhance Fat Loss

IPAkiller

Interesting points made and references used. No matter what anyone says MY body responds to best, I am the one who actually lives in it. The times in my life when I was in the best shape (BF% wise) were all during early morning pre-meal workouts. School athletics, Basic Training, SWCC Training, everyday military conditioning (insert 10 years of not doing it) Insanityx2, revisit SEAL/Buds Prep workout and now P90X. All of these showed rapid changes and were performed early morning before any meal intake. I have actually tried eating before and it resulted in cramping and even vomiting.

Now, regardless my experiences I wouldn't dare write an article or post suggesting everyone do what I do and expect the results/reactions MY body had. To each their own and find out what works best for you. Take the measurements, record your numbers and do it often. Try what the "Fitness Gurus" suggest and if it works, awesome. If it's bullsh*t, kick grass over it and walk the eff on.

_Waffle_

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.

Correct. Fasted cardio is icing on the cake stuff. It does give you some performance differences but now we're talking about endurance and training your body to want to burn fat.

http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/articlePages/article/2

This is beyond the scope of simply losing weight. All you need is a daily calorie deficit for that.

SapiensPisces

Tagging to read later. Thanks for posting this.

jimmmer

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

Yeah, sounds very sensible.

It's once you get down lean and are looking for that extra little bit that these things often come into play. For the general population who wants to lose a few lbs, then it's not going to make much difference.

Cherimoose

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 am curious why you chose only to focus on a trivial attribute of style.

Substantiating claims about controversial topics is never trivial. It determines whether some people will even read an article and take it seriously, since articles without citations are notorious for having unproven claims.

Azdak

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 am curious why you chose only to focus on a trivial attribute of style.

Substantiating claims about controversial topics is never trivial. It determines whether some people will even read an article and take it seriously, since articles without citations are notorious for having unproven claims.

I understand your concern. It just seemed weirdly passive aggressive to wander through someone's article and, without addressing one word of what was written, sniff your nose at the lack of references.

Cherimoose

Substantiating claims about controversial topics is never trivial. It determines whether some people will even read an article and take it seriously, since articles without citations are notorious for having unproven claims.

I understand your concern. It just seemed weirdly passive aggressive to wander through someone's article and, without addressing one word of what was written, sniff your nose at the lack of references.

Three other people commented on the lack of citations, 2 of who said they didn't read the article. Just trying to help increase your readership. I actually agree with your thesis, but that's irrelevant.

GiGiBeans

Tagging to reread

JUDDDing

Sample size of 1...

My heart rate is consistently about 5% higher during exercise (running) fasted (every other day for about the last year).

5% is hardly enough of an effect to form a religion on. So, for me...it doesn't matter. There are other things I can change that would have a more significant and useful effect.

I understand your concern. It just seemed weirdly passive aggressive to wander through someone's article and, without addressing one word of what was written, sniff your nose at the lack of references.

Seems like progress around here to me.

fastforlife1

There is a high that comes from intense exercise in a fasted state that decreases hunger and increases one's energy for hour. This is due to a boost of hormones that naturally increase from fasting and exercise.

"Intermittent fasting for periods ranging from 12-24 hours along with high intensity exercise has a positive effect on boosting human growth hormone (HGH). HGH is a very important protein-based hormone that is produced by the pituitary gland. HGH enhances the cellular repair processes that allow us to age with grace. HGH regulates metabolism to burn fat, build muscle, and slow down the negative effects of stress."

Researchers at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute found that men who had fasted for 24 hours had a 2000% increase in circulating HGH. Women who were tested had a 1300% increase in HGH . Http://www.naturalnews.com/034704_intermittent_fasting_fitness_HGH.html

"Exercise and fasting help counteract all the main determinants of muscle aging. But there is something else about exercise and fasting. When combined, they trigger a mechanism that recycles and rejuvenates your brain and muscle tissues."

The mechanism he refers to is triggering genes and growth factors, including brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF) and muscle regulatory factors (MRFs), which signal brain stem cells and muscle satellite cells to convert into new neurons and new muscle cells, respectively. This means that exercise while fasting may actually help to keep your brain, neuro-motors and muscle fibers biologically young. The combined effect of both intermittent fasting and short intense exercise may go way beyond helping you to burn more fat and lose weight; it may help you to:

Turn back the biological

Boost growth hormone Improve body composition

clock in your muscle and brain



Boost cognitive function Boost testosterone Prevent depression"
http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2012/10/05/exercising-in-fasted-state.aspx#!

SingingSingleTracker

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.

Correct. Fasted cardio is icing on the cake stuff. It does give you some performance differences but now we're talking about endurance and training your body to want to burn fat.

http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/articlePages/article/2

This is beyond the scope of simply losing weight. All you need is a daily calorie deficit for that.

Andy Pruitt has a study connected to this somewhere. Not just to be used for trained endurance athletes, but non-athletes trying to lose weight as well. I know I always throw it into the mix to shed the winter hibernation weight come spring to tune and tone up for bike sesaon. I usually limit myself to doing only 2 or 3 times a week on my morning recovery rides to fire up and ignite the weight trim.

http://www.instantactionsports.com/sports-betting-articles/cycling64.htm



Bonk Training

By Bicycling Magazine

If you're normal, well adjusted and sentient, you have to ask why any cyclist would submit himself to "bonk training." It's the ultimate in hair-shirt riding. You wake up in the morning, drink two cups of coffee without putting anything else in your stomach, then go for a 60-90 minute ride. The answer: To lose weight. FAST.

Andy Pruitt, clinical director of the Boulder Center for Sports Medicine, has seen plenty of cyclists shed their guts with bonk training. "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." If you have an extra 5-10 pounds to lose, empty-stomach exercise first thing in the morning is ideal, he says.

Bonk training works, according to Pruitt, because there's no readily available fuel source for your muscles (there's very little glycogen in the bloodstream when you wake up), so your body has to seek out fuel...stored fat. To get the full effect, you have to maintain an endurance pace; you should be able to converse without panting.

The name of this weight-loss comes from the idea that the training mimics the conditions that lead to the scourge of cyclists- bonking. In fact, true bonking is a danger.

"If you ride like this longer than 90 minutes, your body starts breaking down muscle and protein in organs," says Liz Applegate, sports nutritionist at the University of California-Davis, cyclist and author of Eat Smart, Play Hard. "Then you're not just losing fat, you're weakening your body."
Laura Gabrels Metcalf

HOW TO BONK TRAIN

1. Upon waking, drink 2-3 cups of coffee, up to 45 minutes before cycling. Don't eat.
2. Ride at endurance pace- 60-70% of your max heart rate, or a casual pace that doesn't make you pant when you talk.
3. Keep it up for 20-90 minutes.
4. You can do this on consecutive days, but mix in at least one normal breakfast per week.
5. Eat your typical breakfast as soon as the ride ends.
6 . Watch the blubber ignite!!

just_Jennie1

If I get up early in the morning to hit the gym I typically do fasted cardio. Not because I think it's going to enhance any sort of loss but because I'm not hungry.

dbmata

I understand your concern. It just seemed weirdly passive aggressive to wander through someone's article and, without addressing one word of what was written, sniff your nose at the lack of references.

To some it seems weirdly lazy and dishonest to make claims but have zero data to back it. It's also disrespectful to the readers. Some readers don't like being disrespected.

jimmmer

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.

I'm wondering how you feel about Berkman-esque style every-other-day bulk/deficits, or the UD2.0 style end-of-week carb refeed/surplus?

If the goal is sustained calorie deficit over a period of weeks or months, is the stuff like LG and UD2.0 just effing around and achieving the same result that a longer term moderate deficit would? Or does it (as per the fasted cardio) just pertain to a small percentage of the population who are already well on the way to lean?

It may sound stupid (and probably way OT, but then the citation argument has taken us OT anyway...) but over what period would a calorie surplus be considered a "bulk" and a deficit a "cut"? 1 Day? 1 Week? 1 Month? Is there any concrete science out there that's been done on this?

SideSteel

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.

I'm wondering how you feel about Berkman-esque style every-other-day bulk/deficits, or the UD2.0 style end-of-week carb refeed/surplus?

If the goal is sustained calorie deficit over a period of weeks or months, is the stuff like LG and UD2.0 just effing around and achieving the same result that a longer term moderate deficit would? Or does it (as per the fasted cardio) just pertain to a small percentage of the population who are already well on the way to lean?

It may sound stupid (and probably way OT, but then the citation argument has taken us OT anyway...) but over what period would a calorie surplus be considered a "bulk" and a deficit a "cut"? 1 Day? 1 Week? 1 Month? Is there any concrete science out there that's been done on this?

To clarify are you asking me (since you're quoting me) or Azdak? I'll PM you so I don't derail his thread.

jimmmer

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.

I'm wondering how you feel about Berkman-esque style every-other-day bulk/deficits, or the UD2.0 style end-of-week carb refeed/surplus?

If the goal is sustained calorie deficit over a period of weeks or months, is the stuff like LG and UD2.0 just effing around and achieving the same result that a longer term moderate deficit would? Or does it (as per the fasted cardio) just pertain to a small percentage of the population who are already well on the way to lean?

It may sound stupid (and probably way OT, but then the citation argument has taken us OT anyway...) but over what period would a calorie surplus be considered a "bulk" and a deficit a "cut"? 1 Day? 1 Week? 1 Month? Is there any concrete science out there that's been done on this?

To clarify are you asking me (since you're quoting me) or Azdak? I'll PM you so I don't derail his thread.

Actually, I'd be happy to hear from you, Azdak or anyone else with intelligent views on the matter. I understand if it's way OT, but figured the thread had already been derailed to a certain extent...