Fasted Cardio or Not!!

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

Here is my T-Nation wish for 2007. I would like to see a final and definitive answer on whether or not fasted cardio works for significant fat loss.

I’m not talking about someone’s opinion, even if it is a good educated one. I’m talking about research. Lowery advocates it here and his explanation is reasonable:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=927737

Cosgrove says, and I quote, “Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, are you fucking kidding me? Why are we even talking about this?” His explanation is also reasonable.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=863599

But what does the research say? Are there any studies on this topic? Surely, there are enough Ph.D.s writing for T-Nation to come to some type of agreement on this issue.

2

JEsus christ just shut the fuck up and do it fasted. There is no proof, just like there is no proof that people get away with crimes. EVERYONE does it, all the pros do it, so why not? It can’t make/break a precontest, or regulare lardass diet.

3

NOT

IMO the payoff vs. possible muscle loss ot worth it.

Have something small and go do cardio get some aminos flowing in the blodd so your body isnt taking your when in need.

But my Muscle ive busted ass for is rather important to me :slight_smile:

Phill

4

[quote]squatdude wrote:
But what does the research say? Are there any studies on this topic? Surely, there are enough Ph.D.s writing for T-Nation to come to some type of agreement on this issue.[/quote]

This isn’t necessarily directed at the OP:

Ok, research conclusions are great to know and talk about, but it’s MUCH MORE important to understand how various forms of training (fasted-state cardio for fat loss, in this case) work for your individual physique and genetics.

A four-week trial will teach you plenty about your own body, and you can just let the research reveal trends among other people.

5

I did my own experiment and found that I lost MUCH more fat when I did cardio on an empty stomach. I tend to bulk up and have a hard time with excess bodyfat storage though.

6

I don’t have any science to back this up, simply my own experience.

For people that just want to lose weight, lean or non lean weight. It is fasted cardio all the way.

For fat loss, unfasted cardio.

Sorry I didn’t have any science.

7

Fasted cardio does work, here is why:

Glycogen stores are depleted in the morning. If anyone disputes this have them do a very intense cardio in the morning without food and see how they feel and then compare that to doing the same workout after a meal or two, the workout after the feeding will always be easier.

When one fuel source is low, another fuel source must increase. There are only 3 fuel sources for steady state cardio, carbs, fat, and protein. We just said that carbs are low, so fat and protein must increase. We don’t want to burn protein so we do a lower intensity “fat burning zone” cardio for a longer time.

It clearly works, the real question is how much of a difference does it make. The more muscle you have the bigger difference it makes, this is why pro bodybuilders all use it and it doesn’t matter that much for housewives. It also works best when combined with other training, like intense weight training multiple times per week, so again it is not for people who don’t have the schedule to do it.

If you are into strength, power, or really worried about losing muscle mass, you can’t beat fasted cardio to lose fat and keep muscle.

If you do a search for fasted cardio you will come up with a lot of stuff, but since you asked for some research here is something I found pretty quickly:

“A study carried out at Kansas State University (Wilcox, Harford & Wedel Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 17:2, 1985), indicates that a kilogram of fat will be oxidized sooner when exercising in the fasted condition in the morning than when doing the same exercise in the afternoon. By measuring respiratory gas exchange, caloric expenditure, and carbohydrate and fatty acid metabolism, these researchers showed that the mass of fat burned during aerobic exercise amounts to 67% of the total energy expenditure achieved when the same exercise is done later in the day or in the fed state.”

Hope that clears it up, if you have any more questions let me know.

Tim

8

I did it, it worked for me while I increased strength and muscle mass. Can we end this debate now?

Oh and what works for me isn’t going to work for everyone else :wink:

9

Art De Vany says to do all workouts on an empty stomach to increase HGH production. I personally feel like fainting if I dont eat, so just do what feels best. What gets you working harder food or no food?

10

If I’m used to it, no food is the way to go. No sugar imbalances can improve your performance. Although, forget about looking pumped.

11

Thanks for all the advice. I still wonder why Cosgrove goes ape over this issue. I respect so much of what he has to say.

I am already lifting three times per week and playing pretty intense racquetball three times per week. I will add this to the morning and see what happens.

12

I switched from fed cardio to fasted- noticed that my fasted sessions sucked compared to fed, and I seemed to have lost more fat.

I lift early in the am, so my lifting is fasted, i’ll do some walking after my lift session- again fasted.
For me, it works- or seems to be.

13

This is why I love living in a lipid adapted metabolism, read low carb/high fat. I do morning cardio 3 times a week a half hour or so after a stiff cup of fresh brewed coffee/green tea, 100 mils of vitamin C, 400 IU’s of vitamn E and a teaspoon of EVOO for a jumpstart.

In a lipid adapted environment fats are the metabolically preferred fuel anyway so all the concerns about muscle wasting through amino consumption (gluconeogenesis) do not apply, at least not at the moderate durations I’m doing.

Do I have conclusive test tube proof of this? No, but it makes at least as much sense as any other explanation I’ve read. Nobody is so lean that they can’t provide 20-30 minutes worth of fuel from adipose stores. Admittedly though I do it more for overall health than fat loss anyway right now.

14

Fasted AM IBUR Sprints followed directly with 3 scoops of Surge.

15

Science or not- it has been shown you will lose more weight with early morning fasted cardio.

Who wants to lose weight? I’m more interested in fat loss.

There hasn’t been any definitive studies done to show which burns more fat, as that’s impossible to accurately measure. (If you know how to accurately measure this without DEXA, please let me know as you’ll be a billionaire) Not to mention everyone is different and will respond differently to each situation.

I have noticed that FFB’s will likely lose more muscle with fasted cardio than non-FFB’s due to their body’s desire to store and maintain fat. This is based on my own experience and others I talked with. This is definitely one area genetics ring true.

The truth is- for most people it’s possible to lose fat when the diet is properly dialed in without any cardio at all. Sure you’ll never get down to 5%, but there is no reason you can’t get to 10% without cardio (or much cardio). So really the question is mute. The people who seem to care about this the most are the ones who expect cardio to work miracles on a crappy diet. It’s the whole “I can eat whatever I want as long as I work it off” crowd.

16

I did read a study that said fasted staedy state running burned more fat tahn the same run after eating a control meal. The numerical difference was really quite small. The studies author wrote in the conclusion that the difference was not worth altering your whole day just to do cardio in the am fasted. I can’t find it for you or I would send you a link. They did not address the issue of muscle loss.

17

[quote]squatdude wrote:
Here is my T-Nation wish for 2007. I would like to see a final and definitive answer on whether or not fasted cardio works for significant fat loss.

I’m not talking about someone’s opinion, even if it is a good educated one. I’m talking about research. Lowery advocates it here and his explanation is reasonable:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=927737

Cosgrove says, and I quote, “Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, are you fucking kidding me? Why are we even talking about this?” His explanation is also reasonable.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=863599

But what does the research say? Are there any studies on this topic? Surely, there are enough Ph.D.s writing for T-Nation to come to some type of agreement on this issue.[/quote]

I’m sure the statements by LL and AC are based on the existing research. It’s more of an issue of differing conclusions drawn, differing preferences and goals (are you training for looks or do you have performance goals as well?), different training and dietary regimens which have to be taken into account (good point by Tribulus by the way), etc. Add the fact that every person’s body reacts in an individual manner to a given stimulus, at least to a certain degree, and it seems that a decisive answer is not very likely…

18

[quote]ocn2000 wrote:
They did not address the issue of muscle loss.[/quote]

They never do, thats why the studies are worthless. They always assume all weight loss equals fat loss.

19

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Do I have conclusive test tube proof of this? No, but it makes at least as much sense as any other explanation I’ve read. Nobody is so lean that they can’t provide 20-30 minutes worth of fuel from adipose stores. Admittedly though I do it more for overall health than fat loss anyway right now.[/quote]

20-30 minutes?

I think it would depend on the type of cardio. I mean how many calories do you guys think you can burn before the body starts breaking up muscle too?

I like to run for my cardio and in about 25 mins I’ll burn around 340 calories(1 mile x 110 cal). It’s about 60% of my vo2 max pace. That seems like a lot of calories; theres no way that muscle will not be broken down.

20

[quote]HJLau75 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Do I have conclusive test tube proof of this? No, but it makes at least as much sense as any other explanation I’ve read. Nobody is so lean that they can’t provide 20-30 minutes worth of fuel from adipose stores. Admittedly though I do it more for overall health than fat loss anyway right now.

20-30 minutes?

I think it would depend on the type of cardio. I mean how many calories do you guys think you can burn before the body starts breaking up muscle too?

I like to run for my cardio and in about 25 mins I’ll burn around 340 calories(1 mile x 110 cal). It’s about 60% of my vo2 max pace. That seems like a lot of calories; theres no way that muscle will not be broken down.
[/quote]

What makes you think this? 340 calories is less than 3 tablespoons of olive oil and a fraction of a pound of stored fat. How is that “a lot” of calories? In an already decently conditioned individual who’s body is trained to efficiently utilize energy I doubt if any appreciable amount of muscle at all will be burned in 30 minutes of moderate intensity exercise unless they are VERY lean and or glycogen/glucose depleted.

Also I was referring to a fat adapted metabolism wherein lipids and not glucose are the primary fuel. Nothing in the blood, or liver?.. no problem look at this several thousand calories(at the very least) of stored fat I have to use, especially when my entire endocrine system has been “reprogrammed” to burn fat by preference anyway.