Yet ANOTHER Study Debunking "fasted cardio"
Replies
-
AlanAragon wrote: »Hello everyone, I'm one the study authors. First off, thanks for your interest in this stuff. We spent many months grinding this baby out, and it's great to see it unleashed into the public, spawning discussions like this one. I see that there are some highly knowledgable folks in this thread regarding research methodology - I suggest you listen to them rather than wrestle with them. There's no such thing as research devoid of limitations, and if you read the text, we explicitly discuss the limitations of our work.
You'll notice that there's a disparity between the reported caloric totals and the degree of weight loss - this is undoubtedly due to under-reported intake. But note that under-reporting to a substantial degree is a common occurrence in diet research; it comes with the territory.
Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss. To end off, I'll reiterate what I've posted elsewhere:
______________________________________
If I were to plunk down a practical application for the audience here, it would be that for the goal of fat loss, a net caloric deficit sustained over a period of weeks or months is what matters, not the micromanagement of the placement of your first meal relative to cardio (if you happen to do cardio at all). As seen in our work, fed or fasted moderate-intensity cardio can be done according to individual preference since one doesn't appear to have a meaningful advantage over the other. On a side-note, some people get very uncomfortable at the idea that there's flexibility of the smaller details within a larger framework. "Just tell me which way is better, either fed or fasted HAS to be better, right?" Nope, some things matter, some things might actually not matter, so personal preference should take precedence in the latter.
Well hot damn......nice to see you here on MFP. It'd be great if you brought some of what you provide it the Nutrition forum over at BB here in this forum from time to time.
Disagree. The people here don't want factual info, they want to know the best weight loss pill and flavor of shakeology.0 -
I'll try to stop in more often than my typical frequency (never)
... So much social media, so little time. You might be pleased to know that the subjects in our study used MFP to track & report their intake.
It's good to know that some folks on here follow my work (and the work of my colleagues), and thus can provide sound guidance to those who don't know better. Not saying there aren't other good sources of info, but heaven knows that there's no shortage of *kitten* sources of info for people to dumb themselves down with.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Hundreds of bodybuilders from the 90s disagree with you. Strongly.
You mean they disagree with the study.
(Shh! I'm just trying to stir the pot. It's hard to get a dumpster fire...er, I mean, engaging conversation going in the MFP forums since the from update.)
LOLZ0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »
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).
THIS THIS THIS
0 -
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
AlanAragon wrote: »I'll try to stop in more often than my typical frequency (never)... So much social media, so little time. You might be pleased to know that the subjects in our study used MFP to track & report their intake.
It's good to know that some folks on here follow my work (and the work of my colleagues), and thus can provide sound guidance to those who don't know better. Not saying there aren't other good sources of info, but heaven knows that there's no shortage of *kitten* sources of info for people to dumb themselves down with.
Awesome having you, thanks!0 -
AlanAragon wrote: »I'll try to stop in more often than my typical frequency (never)... So much social media, so little time. You might be pleased to know that the subjects in our study used MFP to track & report their intake.
It's good to know that some folks on here follow my work (and the work of my colleagues), and thus can provide sound guidance to those who don't know better. Not saying there aren't other good sources of info, but heaven knows that there's no shortage of *kitten* sources of info for people to dumb themselves down with.
WOW--thanks for appearing. Interesting post and study. Come and visit anytime.
0 -
Nice discussion and it's great to see the author here.
Reference 17 is interesting. Worth reading.
I do have some concerns on sample size given that there is bias in the sample and error rates on test-retest reliability of bodpod is larger than measured change.0 -
I can't eat fewer than a couple hours before I run. If I do I get horrible stomach cramps. I don't think that counts as fasted but I usually run sometime between lunch and dinner.0
-
-
What's the ES value column in the Table 2 ??
Effect size
Cohen suggested that d=0.2 be considered a 'small' effect size, 0.5 represents a 'medium' effect size and 0.8 a 'large' effect size. This means that if two groups' means don't differ by 0.2 standard deviations or more, the difference is trivial, even if it is statistically signficant
0 -
I wonder if people just consume less if they exercise first thing in the morning while fasted. Cardio kinda kills my appetite for a little while after doing it (if I hit it hard, which I rarely, rarely do). If I did something intense in the a.m., it would be several hours before I felt like eating.
BTW, I never even thought about this stuff until I really go serious about weights and decided I wanted to consciously grow a better body. I also only started working out in the morning within the last several months. Now I stress (sorta) over should I eat before, do I need protein after, can I lift fasted, am I eating my muscles by not doing this or that...? It's pretty effing annoying.0 -
Basically, when you do cardio fasted you are working out in a glycogen and blood sugar depleted state. During the cardio at aerobic levels, your body is foced to use existing fat to fuel the workout. Anerobic activity will require more glycogen expedenture until you bonk. So when you eat carb calories, those calories are more than likely going to be used to replace glycogen levels until full. Then if any remaining calories will be used for fat production. Glycogen when used during cardio workouts will expell water molecules; likewise glycogen production will retain water molecules in your body. The glycogen/water levels have an effect on your weight as well as fat. If you eat before your workout, those carbs will turn into blood sugar. Your body will prefer to use the blood sugar first to fuel your cardio workout thus less fat and lowered levels of glycogen will be used. In the end, you will expel the same amount of calories during a workout. Your fuel just comes from somewhere else. Weight loss then is only significant in the total amount of calories that you consume throughout the day period. Those calories you consume will be used to either fuel a workout directly from blood sugar, used to replace glycogen, or any remainer used in fat production.0
-
But at least we attempt to try to understand science. You're one that in the past has disregard things we've posted even by Alan Aragon himself then you claim that ignorance is bliss when you refuse to learn certain aspects of science.
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
You would instead rather post "Everyone do what makes you happy" and "Go see your doctor". We at least try and understand things, you say you'd rather not.
QFT.0 -
Schoenfeld just posted this on facebook -- this is commentary/thoughts on the study: http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/my-new-study-on-fasted-cardio-and-fat-loss-take-home-points/0
-
Did you know you can now hit the little star on any thread to bookmark it? Then it shows up in your bookmarks, accessed from the little star on the top right of your forum view. Though if you like it to show up that you replied in your news feed, I guess you still would need to reply.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Did you know you can now hit the little star on any thread to bookmark it? Then it shows up in your bookmarks, accessed from the little star on the top right of your forum view. Though if you like it to show up that you replied in your news feed, I guess you still would need to reply.
I do... it would actually be sad if I didn't..0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Hundreds of bodybuilders from the 90s disagree with you. Strongly.
You mean they disagree with the study.
(Shh! I'm just trying to stir the pot. It's hard to get a dumpster fire...er, I mean, engaging conversation going in the MFP forums since the from update.)
LOLZ
Jof's pot-stirring was SUPER EFFECTIVE!
A wild ALAN ARAGON has appeared!0 -
Ok, sorry, trying to be helpful! I like how it pops up to tell you when someone else replied.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Did you know you can now hit the little star on any thread to bookmark it? Then it shows up in your bookmarks, accessed from the little star on the top right of your forum view. Though if you like it to show up that you replied in your news feed, I guess you still would need to reply.
I do... it would actually be sad if I didn't..
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Ok, sorry, trying to be helpful! I like how it pops up to tell you when someone else replied.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Did you know you can now hit the little star on any thread to bookmark it? Then it shows up in your bookmarks, accessed from the little star on the top right of your forum view. Though if you like it to show up that you replied in your news feed, I guess you still would need to reply.
I do... it would actually be sad if I didn't..
No reason to be sorry. Thank you for being helpful.0 -
."AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?
That's be nice.
Citing studies to back up your position is valid. If someone makes a claim it is also valid to request they back it up with actual evidence more than opinion.
0 -
Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?herrspoons wrote: »
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
I think it's also important to realise what this actually means. Short of mathematics, where you can absolutely prove something, turning it from a conjecture to a theorem, the object of any scientific experiment is to test a hypothesis, and to interpret what that suggests, usually by significance testing.
As such, one can build a strong case for a particular hypothesis by repetition of the original experiment, correlation with related studies, or comparison with different studies, and so on. By doing this over time we learn which directions to pursue and which to discard (and sometimes pick up again as our knowledge and investigative ability increases).
So, yes: posting an isolated study or a series of cherry picked extracts from studies isn't helpful, however posting the results of a carefully controlled and relevant study, or better still a body of studies supporting a unified Theory, is.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.
Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."
Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.
Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.
If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.
Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.
Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »I don't care if that is statistically insignificant. I'll take a 0.6% extra bodyfat loss for fasted cardio any day, ha-ha.
Then you clearly don't understand statistical significance. 0.6% is far below the accuracy of ANY bodyfat measuring technique (except perhaps vivisection).
As I said. I don't care about statistical significance. I only care about the actual numbers
Derp.
Lack of statistical significance means that the difference in the results is no different than you would expect from random chance. If, instead of fasted/fed, they plotted the results by the color of their outfits, you find a similar result.
Nice. Succinct AND laywoman's terms. Well played.
0 -
this is why I hardly don't quote anything.herrspoons wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »I don't care if that is statistically insignificant. I'll take a 0.6% extra bodyfat loss for fasted cardio any day, ha-ha.
Then you clearly don't understand statistical significance. 0.6% is far below the accuracy of ANY bodyfat measuring technique (except perhaps vivisection).
This.
People shouldn't quote stats if they don't know how to interpret them.
0 -
dieselbyte wrote: »As was stated earlier, it would be interesting to see a study run over a longer period. However, with that being said, I don't believe results from fasted cardio are statisticaly superior compared to a fed state. I do believe that it is individual preference. If one can perform to the best of their abilities fasted, then go for it. If a fasted state inhibits performance, either mentally, physically, or both, then why even bother?
ETA: As was stated earlier, "majoring in minors"
I know there were words next to your avatar...but I have NO idea what they said.0 -
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
somethings clearly changed because boys went to mars to eat more candy bars when I heard this.0 -
MyChocolateDiet wrote: »
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
somethings clearly changed because boys went to mars to eat more candy bars when I heard this.
And girls went to Venus to get more....0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »MyChocolateDiet wrote: »
. Can you please repeat this in every thread where people post google links back and forth and scream about "Science!" as if their linked study is THE FINAL WORD and nothing will ever change, then call each other names in a "Boys to to school to get more cool and girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider!" vain?"AlanAragon wrote: »Last but not least, an important point I want to make that often eludes folks is that our study (like any study) is merely a piece of the larger puzzle. No single study is capable of defining or "owning" the entire body of evidence. It merely adds to it, nudging the weight of the evidence in one way or the other. The current body of evidence - both acute & chronic data - does not lean compellingly in favor or either fed or fasted cardio for weight/fat loss.
That's be nice.
somethings clearly changed because boys went to mars to eat more candy bars when I heard this.
And girls went to Venus to get more....
oh stahp! what kinda school did you go to?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions