Does fasted cardio burn more fat
Options
Replies
-
Research may suggest that the partitioning of the type of fuel used during a particular exercise may change to a small degree based on whether you're fasted or not fasted.
Does the research also suggest that you will burn more or less calories overall because of the use of a different type of fuel during that exercise?
If at the end of the day you get 1000 people burning 3,000 Calories a day for 30 days = 90000 Calories. And taking in 2500 * 30=75000 Calories. I am willing to put money down that the average fat loss of the group will come out to around 4 lbs
Regardless of the partitioning of fuel that was gained or lost in the interim.
As to the rest of it, cardio you do (length of time * average expenditure per minute) spends more energy than cardio you don't do. Btw, spending energy is probably a non optimal primary goal for doing cardio...5 -
I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference8 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
I understand. It does, in most cases, boil down to personal preference and I stress "preference." I enjoy fasted cardio on longer runs because I do get a natural little high that I enjoy but I also tend to think it is doing something good for my body because my mind and body are both usually very happy after fasted runs. It's enlightening for me. I'm usually happier when I run this way as opposed to non- fasted runs. Overall I believe it's a benefit but it boils down to the word "believe."1 -
I've personally never been able to handle fasted cardio very well. I usually have to at least have a snack or something before a morning workout. Otherwise, my energy plummets and I feel a little tired and just ready for it to be over. So, I guess in that sense, non fasted cardio probably burns more for me simply because I have more energy to channel into the workout.4
-
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
"The research" you linked is one study of 20 females - I wouldn't call that definitive. I posted one up thread that is a meta analysis but everyone seems to be ignoring that.
I mean the OP asked if walking fasted (moderate exercise) would burn more fat than fed and the answer to that question is yes. I don't know why everyone is twisting themselves in knots to try to disprove it.
Whether that has a significant impact on overall results is another matter. I think someone up thread posted that they walked fasted for months and gained weight. I have done moderate fasted cardio most mornings for the last 6-8 weeks and have lost 13 lbs. Both are anecdotes that don't really tell us anything. I also gave up alcohol, added sugar and bread so that is probably more relevant to my weight loss than fasted/not fasted cardio. Maybe if I had done cardio in the evenings I would have lost 12.75 lbs, who knows. I do it fasted in the mornings because that is what I prefer.1 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
"The research" you linked is one study of 20 females - I wouldn't call that definitive. I posted one up thread that is a meta analysis but everyone seems to be ignoring that.
I mean the OP asked if walking fasted (moderate exercise) would burn more fat than fed and the answer to that question is yes. I don't know why everyone is twisting themselves in knots to try to disprove it.
Whether that has a significant impact on overall results is another matter. I think someone up thread posted that they walked fasted for months and gained weight. I have done moderate fasted cardio most mornings for the last 6-8 weeks and have lost 13 lbs. Both are anecdotes that don't really tell us anything. I also gave up alcohol, added sugar and bread so that is probably more relevant to my weight loss than fasted/not fasted cardio. Maybe if I had done cardio in the evenings I would have lost 12.75 lbs, who knows. I do it fasted in the mornings because that is what I prefer.
The difference in views is largely a failure by some to distinguish between:
1. Fuel source in the moment, during exercise,
and
2. Net effects on fuel stores (of different types) over time.
The OP didn't make that distinction in his question, but rather left it ambiguous, open to interpretation. I believe some people replying are interpreting that in light of his other posts, where the focus is weight loss or muscle mass gain. For weight loss, the research suggests that fasted cardio vs. non-fasted cardio is irrelevant, i.e., calorie deficit over time is what leads to weight loss.
Some of the research studies that have been linked, or referred to, talk about fuel sources in the moment, during exercise. In those cases, it appears there is a difference in fat utilization. That's relevant to endurance exercise fueling strategies, so important research, but not especially relevant if the goal is weight loss.
There are 2 different questions in discussion here (#1 & #2 above). It matters which one we're trying to answer. #1 is relevant for endurance athletes, primarily. #2 is more relevant to weight loss.5 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
"The research" you linked is one study of 20 females - I wouldn't call that definitive. I posted one up thread that is a meta analysis but everyone seems to be ignoring that.
I mean the OP asked if walking fasted (moderate exercise) would burn more fat than fed and the answer to that question is yes. I don't know why everyone is twisting themselves in knots to try to disprove it.
Whether that has a significant impact on overall results is another matter. I think someone up thread posted that they walked fasted for months and gained weight. I have done moderate fasted cardio most mornings for the last 6-8 weeks and have lost 13 lbs. Both are anecdotes that don't really tell us anything. I also gave up alcohol, added sugar and bread so that is probably more relevant to my weight loss than fasted/not fasted cardio. Maybe if I had done cardio in the evenings I would have lost 12.75 lbs, who knows. I do it fasted in the mornings because that is what I prefer.
The OP is trying to lose a significant amount of weight, he is concerned with his overall loss of fat and getting lost in the weeds of trying to manipulate fuel sources for a short walk is spectacularly unhelpful to him. It's a complete distraction.
He is not an athlete doing 4hr exercise stints trying to improve endurance. Context matters.6 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
"The research" you linked is one study of 20 females - I wouldn't call that definitive. I posted one up thread that is a meta analysis but everyone seems to be ignoring that.
I mean the OP asked if walking fasted (moderate exercise) would burn more fat than fed and the answer to that question is yes. I don't know why everyone is twisting themselves in knots to try to disprove it.
Whether that has a significant impact on overall results is another matter. I think someone up thread posted that they walked fasted for months and gained weight. I have done moderate fasted cardio most mornings for the last 6-8 weeks and have lost 13 lbs. Both are anecdotes that don't really tell us anything. I also gave up alcohol, added sugar and bread so that is probably more relevant to my weight loss than fasted/not fasted cardio. Maybe if I had done cardio in the evenings I would have lost 12.75 lbs, who knows. I do it fasted in the mornings because that is what I prefer.
The OP is trying to lose a significant amount of weight, he is concerned with his overall loss of fat and getting lost in the weeds of trying to manipulate fuel sources for a short walk is spectacularly unhelpful to him. It's a complete distraction.
He is not an athlete doing 4hr exercise stints trying to improve endurance. Context matters.
I didn't see any context in his post - just a simple question. Which I tried to help him answer with the facts that I was aware of.
From my view proceeding to interpret those facts for himwould be somewhat infantilizing as I assume he can read the information and interpret and use it in relation to his own goals.
But if that type of response is not welcome here then consider me suitably admonished, I will refrain from responding in future.
2 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
"The research" you linked is one study of 20 females - I wouldn't call that definitive. I posted one up thread that is a meta analysis but everyone seems to be ignoring that.
I mean the OP asked if walking fasted (moderate exercise) would burn more fat than fed and the answer to that question is yes. I don't know why everyone is twisting themselves in knots to try to disprove it.
Whether that has a significant impact on overall results is another matter. I think someone up thread posted that they walked fasted for months and gained weight. I have done moderate fasted cardio most mornings for the last 6-8 weeks and have lost 13 lbs. Both are anecdotes that don't really tell us anything. I also gave up alcohol, added sugar and bread so that is probably more relevant to my weight loss than fasted/not fasted cardio. Maybe if I had done cardio in the evenings I would have lost 12.75 lbs, who knows. I do it fasted in the mornings because that is what I prefer.
The OP is trying to lose a significant amount of weight, he is concerned with his overall loss of fat and getting lost in the weeds of trying to manipulate fuel sources for a short walk is spectacularly unhelpful to him. It's a complete distraction.
He is not an athlete doing 4hr exercise stints trying to improve endurance. Context matters.
I didn't see any context in his post - just a simple question. Which I tried to help him answer with the facts that I was aware of.
From my view proceeding to interpret those facts for himwould be somewhat infantilizing as I assume he can read the information and interpret and use it in relation to his own goals.
But if that type of response is not welcome here then consider me suitably admonished, I will refrain from responding in future.
If you look at the OP's recent posting history the context will be very apparent.4 -
I didn't see any context in his post - just a simple question. Which I tried to help him answer with the facts that I was aware of.
From my view proceeding to interpret those facts for himwould be somewhat infantilizing as I assume he can read the information and interpret and use it in relation to his own goals.
But if that type of response is not welcome here then consider me suitably admonished, I will refrain from responding in future.
I think this is a fair point -- you answered the very technical point of the question, the rest of us are actually assuming the question was more like -- "will I lose weight faster doing fasted cardio."
We are making assumptions and those assumptions could be wrong.
While I'm new here, I've been very active on other weight loss and fitness forums for years. Based on the prior posts by the OP here and my past experience, I'd make a sizable bet on the correctness of our assumptions
6 -
I have literally never read another post by the OP and was just trying to contribute what I know to the discussion. Honestly I am bored here in quarantine and thought maybe these forum discussions might be interesting to get back into. Apparently not.
As I said I will refrain from posting. I don’t have the time or inclination to research the post history of every OP. 😊
Have a lovely Sunday all.3 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
"The research" you linked is one study of 20 females - I wouldn't call that definitive. I posted one up thread that is a meta analysis but everyone seems to be ignoring that.
I mean the OP asked if walking fasted (moderate exercise) would burn more fat than fed and the answer to that question is yes. I don't know why everyone is twisting themselves in knots to try to disprove it.
Whether that has a significant impact on overall results is another matter. I think someone up thread posted that they walked fasted for months and gained weight. I have done moderate fasted cardio most mornings for the last 6-8 weeks and have lost 13 lbs. Both are anecdotes that don't really tell us anything. I also gave up alcohol, added sugar and bread so that is probably more relevant to my weight loss than fasted/not fasted cardio. Maybe if I had done cardio in the evenings I would have lost 12.75 lbs, who knows. I do it fasted in the mornings because that is what I prefer.
That was me...and it does tell us something. It tells us that I have been in a calorie surplus for most of 2020 and put on 20 Lbs despite walking most mornings early in a fasted state...and you have been in a calorie deficit.4 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I didn't see any context in his post - just a simple question. Which I tried to help him answer with the facts that I was aware of.
From my view proceeding to interpret those facts for himwould be somewhat infantilizing as I assume he can read the information and interpret and use it in relation to his own goals.
But if that type of response is not welcome here then consider me suitably admonished, I will refrain from responding in future.
I think this is a fair point -- you answered the very technical point of the question, the rest of us are actually assuming the question was more like -- "will I lose weight faster doing fasted cardio."
Exactly this, and (like you) I strongly believe the assumption was correct.
People get confused about burning fat during exercise being somehow better for weight loss, but it's not, has nothing to do with it. I've actually had people warn me that running or exercising too vigorously hinders weight loss vs walking, because your heart rate gets outside the fat burning zone, which is another such misunderstanding.
I suspect for OP, the relevant question is if he would burn more cals walking fasted vs not, and probably not. He might even burn fewer if he walked less time or slower because he wanted to eat or didn't feel as strong. (I don't think that's a major risk if he just had a specific goal to walk a certain distance or some such, but if he's just getting active again and finds himself getting tired by the end of the walk, it would be something to consider.)4 -
I have literally never read another post by the OP and was just trying to contribute what I know to the discussion. Honestly I am bored here in quarantine and thought maybe these forum discussions might be interesting to get back into. Apparently not.
As I said I will refrain from posting. I don’t have the time or inclination to research the post history of every OP. 😊
Have a lovely Sunday all.
And on a different OP where several of us had not helped with similar questions - we'd be in the same boat and the info could indeed be very useful with no context given - so keep it coming.
I was alluding to the same fact of what occurs during the exercise, with when it is a specific help.
Because people do hear things they think are useful in all cases - so pointing out the actual use case can be helpful.
Like some see the commercials and read very little and think they need to drink a big chocolate milk after their workout - no matter what that workout may be. Search the topics - they are there in the past.
And they may really prefer to have that calorie room for something better, because that drink really isn't needed for their workout.
But that info in some hands may not lead to much except disappointment, thinking more should have happened.
At least that's the good thing on these minor nuances - not too much harm is going to come from it - merely wasted time and focus on things that really don't matter in the big picture. At least not yet.
2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
"The research" you linked is one study of 20 females - I wouldn't call that definitive. I posted one up thread that is a meta analysis but everyone seems to be ignoring that.
I mean the OP asked if walking fasted (moderate exercise) would burn more fat than fed and the answer to that question is yes. I don't know why everyone is twisting themselves in knots to try to disprove it.
Whether that has a significant impact on overall results is another matter. I think someone up thread posted that they walked fasted for months and gained weight. I have done moderate fasted cardio most mornings for the last 6-8 weeks and have lost 13 lbs. Both are anecdotes that don't really tell us anything. I also gave up alcohol, added sugar and bread so that is probably more relevant to my weight loss than fasted/not fasted cardio. Maybe if I had done cardio in the evenings I would have lost 12.75 lbs, who knows. I do it fasted in the mornings because that is what I prefer.
That was me...and it does tell us something. It tells us that I have been in a calorie surplus for most of 2020 and put on 20 Lbs despite walking most mornings early in a fasted state...and you have been in a calorie deficit.
To clarify I meant that “it doesn’t tell us anything” about fasted vs. not fasted cardio - as that was the context of the discussion. But I think you knew that and are just being purposely condescending now. You guys really don’t like new people around here do you? 😆1 -
I'm in a calorie deficit and I walk 45mins most mornings in a fasted state op here.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »FitAgainBy55 wrote: »I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
It's not that we disagree with the research, it's that the research says nothing about overall weight loss.
For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242477/In conclusion, our findings indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training. Hence, those seeking to lose body fat conceivably can choose to train either before or after eating based on preference
"The research" you linked is one study of 20 females - I wouldn't call that definitive. I posted one up thread that is a meta analysis but everyone seems to be ignoring that.
I mean the OP asked if walking fasted (moderate exercise) would burn more fat than fed and the answer to that question is yes. I don't know why everyone is twisting themselves in knots to try to disprove it.
Whether that has a significant impact on overall results is another matter. I think someone up thread posted that they walked fasted for months and gained weight. I have done moderate fasted cardio most mornings for the last 6-8 weeks and have lost 13 lbs. Both are anecdotes that don't really tell us anything. I also gave up alcohol, added sugar and bread so that is probably more relevant to my weight loss than fasted/not fasted cardio. Maybe if I had done cardio in the evenings I would have lost 12.75 lbs, who knows. I do it fasted in the mornings because that is what I prefer.
That was me...and it does tell us something. It tells us that I have been in a calorie surplus for most of 2020 and put on 20 Lbs despite walking most mornings early in a fasted state...and you have been in a calorie deficit.
To clarify I meant that “it doesn’t tell us anything” about fasted vs. not fasted cardio - as that was the context of the discussion. But I think you knew that and are just being purposely condescending now. You guys really don’t like new people around here do you? 😆
Not at all...my point was that weight loss is determined by your calorie deficit. There are various reasons to train fasted...but it doesn't result in any greater net fat loss. When I was doing more endurance cycling I did a lot of fasted training...because it's beneficial for that purpose...but I didn't lose weight on average any faster than my overall deficit would suggest I would.
Fasted training will result in more fat being used for fuel for that specific thing...but you are constantly cycling between fuel sources and fat use/fat storage and glycogen use/glycogen storage. At the end of the day, any net fat loss you have is going to come down to your overall calorie deficit.
We're perfectly fine with new people around here.5 -
sflano1783 wrote: »I'm in a calorie deficit and I walk 45mins most mornings in a fasted state op here.
How is your weight loss going?
1 -
I run/walk fasted each day (90 minutes) and then resistance train for about 30 minutes (one body part). I like training fasted because I don't worry about getting nauseous or feel like throwing up since I have no food in my stomach. Also, I don't feel hungry directly afterwards and can wait another few hours before eating.I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Many to most people will share their experiences and that's great! But it's just that...a nonmedical opinion. Research has suggested that there may be as much as a 6% increase in fat burning due to fasted cardio. Again, it's research in medical journals that could best answer your question.
Inevitably it is eating at a deficit over time that will create weight loss. With that being said, I like fasted cardio. I will usually prefer a fasted run to any other one. Big fat however, if I were to run fasted and come home and overeat then no matter how great the run was the fasted cardio wouldn't have made a difference and would have been done in vain.
Also and most importantly if you enjoy doing cardio fasted as opposed to not doing cardio in a fasted state, then ultimately, that is what matters most!
And yes there is good medical science to show that you may burn a higher percentage of fat for fuel in moderate to low cardio exercise, but if someone trained higher intensity for the same duration, they'd likely burn more overall fat calories in total.
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
2 -
Incidentally, OP if you don't know it, you burn more fat calories overall at REST than any exercise regimen you do. It's actually part of your BMR. If you're NOT getting enough sleep, this can be impeded.
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 2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions