Lots of questions. Feel free to answer as preferred (SORRY)

I overheard a trainer say the other day that cardio is not the same in regards to the amount of calories you have ingested. What I think he meant by that is that you burn more calories with the more excess, well not excess but, more calories you have ready to use in your system. This is to the extreme but it is a serious thought. Imagine a man who takes 30,000 steps fasted/bcaas maybe/minimal food. Then compare a man who just ate at the state fair and had like 10,000 calories. If he took 30,000 steps, using the trainers logic that would mean the guy who had 10k calories would burn more calories yes?

And in addition if the trainer is wrong. Then what would happen if the guy had minimal food or fasted but was extremely active(30,000 steps in this example) and ate all his calories late and night and went to bed right after?

Which is the better scenario?

Also, is it bad to do extended amounts of fasted cardio and do a type of one BIG meal a day and a couple small meals when trying to bulk? This being as a result of trying to fit macros on a clean bulk

Replies

  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    From my understanding, there is very little difference as to whether you work out fasted or after eating. If you eat beforehand, you burn more while doing cardio but if you eat afterwards you burn more after the cardio.
    Overall, the difference is that small that you are best off doing what works for you.
  • thelostbreed02
    thelostbreed02 Posts: 87 Member
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    From my understanding, there is very little difference as to whether you work out fasted or after eating. If you eat beforehand, you burn more while doing cardio but if you eat afterwards you burn more after the cardio.
    Overall, the difference is that small that you are best off doing what works for you.

    I'm confused so if you do eat before this 30,000 steps you expend more than if you do it semi fasted or with little/less food?
  • liz0269
    liz0269 Posts: 139 Member
    liz0269 wrote: »
    I think it also would depend on how many carbs you eat. You can store 1500-2000 calories worth of carbs between your muscles and your liver but if you eat low carb you won't have that storage and may start burning muscle.

    That's not how it works.

    So how does it work? I'm not being snarky. I really want to understand.
  • liz0269
    liz0269 Posts: 139 Member
    liz0269 wrote: »
    liz0269 wrote: »
    I think it also would depend on how many carbs you eat. You can store 1500-2000 calories worth of carbs between your muscles and your liver but if you eat low carb you won't have that storage and may start burning muscle.

    That's not how it works.

    So how does it work? I'm not being snarky. I really want to understand.

    If you're getting enough overall calories on a low-carb diet, your body will generally use the fat and protein you are consuming on a daily basis for energy before it will go scavenging your body parts for energy. I say generally because preferential pathways for energy aren't all-or-nothing on-off switches.

    If you're in calorie deficit, you do put your muscles at risk for being broken down for stored energy, but that risk exists any time you are in a deficit, with the risk increasing more based on how large your deficit is, rather than based on what the macro split in your diet is.

    I hope that's clear. I always feel like my explanations are too long, but I can't figure out a shorter way to say it.

    I guess I am confused. I don't eat low carb. I actually eat high carb. I thought that high carb protects your muscles because your body can tap the stored glycogen so that it doesn't have to use muscle for energy. Isn't that why athletes carb load before a race?