Yet ANOTHER Study Debunking "fasted cardio"
Options
Replies
-
This is interesting. I guess I never thought fasted or fed cardio made a difference in anything but how you feel. I prefer to work out semi-fasted. If I work out in the morning, I do it fasted because I am usually not hungry for breakfast until I have been up for an hour or two anyway. My water aerobics class starts at 4:00 PM and I have found that I get a little nauseous if I have eaten within 2 hours of the class, unless I ate something really light like a slice of toast or handful of nuts. I usually have a Quest bar for my afternoon snack so I make sure I have eaten it before 2:00 on those days.
Whatever. It is working for me and I am satisfied with my weight and fat loss so far.
0 -
What's the ES value column in the Table 2 ??
From this study one can't even conclude that the cardio has any effect on weight loss - after 4 weeks on a 500 cal/day deficit the average weight loss was 2.9 pounds ;-)0 -
For me, regardless of the study, I hate fasted cardio, I don't feel like I have the same amount of energy and end up cutting sessions short. So when im trying to cut it's harder on fasted as I don't burn as much as I do doing none fasted.0
-
Is this the study that Schoenfeld recently submitted for review in May in believe?
ETA: Disregard. I answered my own question. I was waiting for this to come out.
In to see 1 group of people actually discuss the study vs the other group of people that want to state how they know fasted cardiovascular is better because they believe so. Should be interesting.
I think you are going to be disappointed.
0 -
You forget that they are dosing on clen during this time of fasted cardio, so it MUST be true.jofjltncb6 wrote: »Hundreds of bodybuilders from the 90s disagree with you. Strongly.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
You forget that they are dosing on clen during this time of fasted cardio, so it MUST be true.jofjltncb6 wrote: »Hundreds of bodybuilders from the 90s disagree with you. Strongly.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Don't they also take "stuff" that increases their BMR back then?
0 -
I believe this is why the myth gets passed on in the fitness industry. Most competitors that tout it are getting into mid to low single digit percentages of body fat for a competition and more than likely this subtle change has an impact on their overall look.chrisdavey wrote: »Unfortunately, those bodybuilders are all n=1 examples and whose to say that if they did their cardio in a fed state with equivalent energy balance their results would be any different.
A few points on the study though. Even though 4 weeks is longer than the acute studies of the past it still is only 4 weeks. There was no statistical significance over the 4 weeks but would that still be the case after 12-16 weeks? (I dieted down to bb comp over 20 personally)
I still agree that you should just do your cardio (the minimum required for fat loss if you are doing it purely for aesthetics) whenever you can and don't sweat over the fasted vs fed stuff.
I had someone ask me this exact question the other day. Male and approximately 25% BF. Majoring in the minors.
I don't have as much time to look at these things in detail these days, but I believe that the one instance in which fasted cardio might play a supporting role in better fat loss results in when you have someone who is very lean and needs to become extremely lean. I think Lyle McDonald goes into this on his site (and I think it forms part of the basis for his "stubborn fat" book.
The issue in fat oxidation vs fat mobilization. Unfit, obese individuals have plenty of fat available, but their ability to oxidize fat is impaired. Fit, very lean individuals have the opposite problem--they can oxidize fat, but can struggle to mobilize their fat stores. In this case, interventions such as fasted cardio, HIIT, and some supplements might have a more significant effect.
But for the average person just trying to lose weight and fat.................not so much.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Or did it without t3 and clen?chrisdavey wrote: »Unfortunately, those bodybuilders are all n=1 examples and whose to say that if they did their cardio in a fed state with equivalent energy balance their results would be any different.
0 -
I just want to say thank you for this. I got a good chuckle out of it this morning.Foamroller wrote: »
As I said. I don't care about statistical significance. I only care about the actual numbers
0 -
I prefer to do my workouts in the morning before I eat. I get better results.
Ditto.
Like Mr Knight, I'll actually do my workouts first thing in the morning... later in the day, not so regularly. Consistency = results.
It's not possible for me to keep food (or liquid) down if I eat too soon after waking. I can't even imagine how my stomach would fare if I ate before working out
0 -
Like with all studies I wish the sample size was larger, the duration was longer, the calorie intake was not self reported, the subjects were my exact height, weight, age, fitness level....
This study is another useful bit of information, even with its limitations. Maybe the fat loss results would start to show a difference over a longer period of time but so might FFM loss. NOT MY GAINS!
Performance, adherence, recovery and probably some other things would not be measured in any case but are just as important when considering things like this.
I think "personal preference" is still the correct answer for fasted vs fed cardio. I have not seen one study that show any significant advantage but have not seen one showing anything bad about it either.
0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »I have not seen one study that show any significant advantage but have not seen one showing anything bad about it either.
Well, one downside is it could make your breath smell. I can often tell when someone at my gym is in a fasted state, because of the stank. It seems that some people can't smell it though. Presumably the smell is from muscle being burned as fuel.. which doesn't seem to be an optimal state to be in.
-1 -
Foamroller wrote: »
Anyway, I would say that if the scientist who made this study was after statistical significance, then why was the study comprised of only 20 participants, effectively making the numbers in each group consisting only of 10 individuals. It's also a bit concerning that although the participants were randomized. ALL the younger females were clumped into the fed group. Could a more spread population perhaps have differed the results? I don't know.
Could the fact that all the participants were not very fat, probably very athletic also give different results compared to, let's say BMI above 28 people.
Since you are so much more scholarly endowed than me, I'm sure you would know that a "study" of 20 people is NOT a big enough number to make conclusions about the GENERAL POPULATION. So based on that the whole study is not statistically significant whichever conclusion you want to believe is right.
Actually that weird clumping makes it look more like it was a truly randomised study. Despite what common sense tells us, you expect clumps in random samples.0 -
redfiona99 wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »
Anyway, I would say that if the scientist who made this study was after statistical significance, then why was the study comprised of only 20 participants, effectively making the numbers in each group consisting only of 10 individuals. It's also a bit concerning that although the participants were randomized. ALL the younger females were clumped into the fed group. Could a more spread population perhaps have differed the results? I don't know.
Could the fact that all the participants were not very fat, probably very athletic also give different results compared to, let's say BMI above 28 people.
Since you are so much more scholarly endowed than me, I'm sure you would know that a "study" of 20 people is NOT a big enough number to make conclusions about the GENERAL POPULATION. So based on that the whole study is not statistically significant whichever conclusion you want to believe is right.
Actually that weird clumping makes it look more like it was a truly randomised study. Despite what common sense tells us, you expect clumps in random samples.
Yup, you expect a lot of things with random samples, including random people being unable to understand why a study has a certain size, or that groups were done in a certain way.0 -
The study proves nothing based on the small demo of participants and the short duration. Plus, just based on the statistical significance, it would be impossible to get any real data because not matter what, the numbers would always be too close to call.
Personally, I do my morning runs fasted because, if I eat before running, I get gastro issues. I also do my strength training fasted for no real reason other than I don't want to eat at 5:30 AM. I'd rather eat after my workout at 7 AM.
Science never proves anything. It simply provides evidence for or against a hypothesis. The law of gravity is never "proven" true....it just hasn't ever been shown to be false in any study. No matter the scale, if the evidence is there, then the statement can be made. The law of averages come into play, of course, so if the sample size is small, and it is a single study, it cannot scientifically represent the whole group (a whole population).
Significance is also subjective. 0.1 lbs to a 400 lb person is not the same as it is to a 150 lb person. Same with the data in this study. When measuring body fat composition, it could be argued that 0.01% is significant considering the length of time it takes to lose overall body fat.
0 -
Given the time and effort involved in doing any study such as this, sample sizes are always going to be small. Within the context of this type of research, the sample size is acceptable--usually it has to be if the study is going to be accepted for publication (peer review and all).Foamroller wrote: »I'd say using a word like "DEBUNKED" is jumping the gun. You forgot to mention that the study consisted of 20 women. ...Although peer reviewed, that's a very scant sample to generalized conclusion up to a general population.
Any study has to control for variables and one must always exercise caution when generalizing results to the general population (as one must always exercise caution and restraint trying to microparse a study to cast it in a negative light because the results challenge a strongly-held dogma).
While this study is somewhat unique in that (per the authors) it is the first to look at actual effects of fasted vs non-fasted (as opposed to extrapolating results from an acute response), it is hardly groundbreaking. It mostly confirmed what exercise researchers already know.Burning fat cells only starts after 20 minutes of continuous exercise. I really wonder how that significant "fat loss" could occur. I've been taught that the total kcal burn is higher at higher intensity, and thereby also the fat burn. I tested it myself in 10 minute intervals. I burn 45 kcal at 70%, 55 kcal at 75% and a whopping 80 kcal at 80% almost doubling the burn. (the burns are low cause I'm old and not overweight anymore)
See my earlier remarks about extrapolating (wrongly) from acute responses. Substrate utilization during exercise has no effect on fat loss. The amount of fat burned during an exercise session is trivial to begin with and the difference between "fasted" and "non-fasted" is no more than about 1/2 oz after a 60 min workout. And, even that tiny difference is wiped out because the body up and down regulates fat oxidation over the following hours, so that at the end of the day, total fat oxidation is equal.
(Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2009 April ; 37(2): 93–101.
Exercise improves fat metabolism in muscle but does not increase 24-h fat oxidation
Edward L Melanson, Ph.D., Paul S. MacLean, Ph.D., and James O. Hill, Ph.D.)
Your point about intensity vs calories is irrelevant in that it has nothing to do with fasted vs unfasted exercise.
0 -
IMO, if they were going to do a study on this with more accuracy, they should use twins who are are the same weight and body fat percentage.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
i don't eat or drink before i run just because it makes me feel sick. not sure why anyone would think when you consume your calories will make a difference to fat loss. it's still going to come back to in vs. out.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions