Originally Posted by thefitnessvoice

Hey Greenhorn Gal It burns 300% more calories and more fat.

Originally Posted by Wrangell

Actually, it would appear that " fasted cardio is an advantage " only if ( according to Alan at least )......

1) you train at at low intensities (25-50% VO2 max)

2) you're " an untrained " ( i.e 63-68% VO2 max ) trainee

..........cause in those cases, having carbs before cardio has an adverse impact on fat oxidation.

In the other cases Alan mentioned, it appears fat oxidation is not impaired by having carbs before cardio.....so, doing " 40 mins fasted cardio in the morning ' is not dissimilar ' fat burning wise ' to doing 40 mins non-fasted cardio in the morning.

Originally Posted by MB1

You do not have to be untrained to be at 70% V02 max, just aware. The article is written in a non-affirmative sense, i.e. what will reduce fat loss, not what will increase it.

So, if you want fasted cardio to work for you, a light jog or average bike ride every morning sounds like the plan. Generally I think people knew that high intensity cardio fasted is not the go.

Originally Posted by Phate89

Hey BSL, how are you calculating how much your burning on your runs?

Originally Posted by MB1

About BikeSwimLaugh's reference to fat you have had for a long time being harder to get off - while his/her explanation -could- explain your situation there are other more scientific explanations that are also possible.

Originally Posted by MB1

--You are burning many calories. You have lost alot of weight. Your body may be going into starvation mode. Look it up. .

Originally Posted by MB1

--Secondly, about his/her personal trainer - this person probarbly has alot amount of muscle under the fat, which makes their bodies a more efficient fat burning machine. If you have more muscle you will burn more fat.

Originally Posted by Wrangell

I think the general point Alan is alluding to ( at least IMO ) , is that for the vast majority of gym rats who train with cardio regularly, doing non-fasted cardio ( i.e having carbs before you do cardio ) will result in fat burning that is not significantly different than the fat burning you'll get from fasted cardio.

Originally Posted by BikeSwimLaugh

TFV,

There is some accuracy that in the morning your blood-sugars tend to be lower....but the theory of doing cardio on an emtpy stomach has more or less been debunked and considered "old-school". Enter the new notion that "Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame"....heard of that?

Fact of the matter is, the body maintains an even-keel glucose-level in the blood. If your sugar level goes up (by eating), then insulin is released from the pancreas and the excess glucose is stored, provided your glycogen storage in the liver & muscle are full, as fat.

If your blood-sugar level goes down, the body merely uses it's reserves to maintain a proper level. My understanding is that this generally comes from fat...that's mostly what you're burning while you sleep in fact...but at a very slow rate.

The bottom-line is that your body will keep your glucose level at a set ideal amount, so you don't wake-up with a low glucose level, you just wake-up at a standard level...not elevated from eating, not depleted from working-out. Simple as that.

Granted, if you consume food...that food will be broken down and it's energy will generally be used towards exercise if you are exercising. By not eating that food you may start getting right into your stored glycogen & fat a bit sooner....but in little time you'll feel weak & tired.

Myself...I've woken-up at 6am and gone on 3-hour bike rides involving steep hills. Riding on an empty stomach quickly finds me weak, slow and lathargic....overall I may burn a total of 1,750 calories. What I've found is that by eating a reasonable breakfast...some low-sugar oatmeal, 1/2-apple and some protein shake...I'm riding on my bike MUCH faster and harder: I definitely get in some HIIT and my overall calorie burn is 2,350......so even though I'm taking in some 250 calories in breakfast, I'm burning-up, overall, 350 more calories under "fueled" conditions.

300% more fat by doing it in the morning....just isn't right. An airplane has a fuel-selector switch that allows a pilot to select from which fuel tank he wishes to draw upon...but our bodies aren't like that. We burn, at any given time, a combination of fat, glycogen and ATP/Creatine-Phoshate. The combination changes according to demand, but it's always a mix of all fuel resources!

Once you get into a routine, it doesn't take long before it's all burning. Fat is a very slow-burning fuel and anything more then a slow walk will easily access glycogen for energy, but even walking burns glycogen.

Working-out on an empty stomach.....it's disco, old-school....almost as bad as when coaches would force their athletes to workout without drinking anything! Put a few hundred calories in your stomach, you'll have more energy throughout the workout AND burn more calories overall. You can't induce 300% more fat-burning by running on an early-morning empty stomach....it just doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by thefitnessvoice

But the numbers do add up if you are burning fat rather then carbs for energy. Fat is 9 calories per gram and carbs are 4 calories per gram.

Originally Posted by thefitnessvoice

So if you are only burning stored fat then you are in fact burning more calories and fat then if you had eaten something....

Originally Posted by BikeSwimLaugh

TFV....

You're working the equation from the wrong end. When you CONSUME food, a gram of fat renders 9 calories of energy for your body to use, whereas a gram of carbs renders 4 calories. You're talking about the energy derived from eating food. Food is digested and essentially broken down into glucose...it's then stored in your muscle & liver as glycogen, and once those reserves are full, the remainder is stored in your fat. This is all energy coming IN.

When exercising, we're talking about calories being burned, or going OUT. It has nothing to do with fat having 9 calories or carbs having 4.

I believe what you are suggesting is that by exercising in our "Fat-burning zone", we somehow connect with this 9-calorie fat vs. 4-calorie carbs. I surmize you're also suggesting that if we were to kick it up a notch and workout in a higher zone, we'd be burning less fat and less calories as well?



As I mentioned, the body burns a combination of several sources of enegy (fuels)....but at a low-rate, fat eventually becomes a primary source. When you workout harder, you'll burn less fat in proportion to glycogen, but you'll still overall burn more calories from fat then if you worked-out at a lower intensity.

We've hammered this subject several times on the forum.

I'm gonna lay it out. I'm not trying to rile ya, call you out or give you a hard time...I bet you're an amazing fighter and I don't doubt that you have some good experience with developing workouts and standing-out in the fitness community.....but your knowledge of nutrition and understanding of things is just not there. The logic entirely fails to follow. Perhaps you could explain differently/better?

Originally Posted by BikeSwimLaugh

I can not put any science behind it. You'd think a pound of fat is a pound of fat and all stored fat, regardless of how long it's been on the body, would burn or be consumed for energy at the same rate.

What I've observed is that you can take 2 people. One who put-on 50 pounds over the last couple years, and another person who has been fat all their lives. For reasons that elude my explanation and to which I can not reference any science to explain, the person who put the weight on over the last couple years will shed their fat faster...while the fatty-4-life will have a much MUCH tougher time. I'll ask my nutritionist about this when next I see him.




I do burn a LOT of calories, I can average 15-18 hours of exercise per week sometimes. I have lost fat at approx. .7 -1 pound per week. I've also stacked-on a heap of muscle. I'm not in starvation mode; you don't build muscle while you're starving.




The trainer to which I'm referring to (Peter) instructs a senior swim-ercise class...he works with the old-folks crowd. I met him about 5 months ago, he's about 45 and looked like a pear. Every week that guy looked slimmer & trimmer. With just moderate cardio and a reduction in his bread/beer, he dropped some 37 pounds in 1/3 the time it took me to lose the same amount. He is not muscular, not in the least....he's got a jello-build, okay...maybe pudding, but it's not firm or muscular.

I'm 5' 8" and my body-fat% is digital-caliper measured by a certified nutritionist (and author of the article Wrangell made reference to) at 11.8%...which would suggest I'm rather lean; yet I weigh 225 frickin' pounds. In the words of Bruce Willis, in the awesome movie The 5th Element..."I am a meat popsicle". Look it up

Originally Posted by thefitnessvoice

BikeSwimLaugh

Through most of the studies I have studied and from when I was studying kinesiology and sports medicine in school those were the facts that we found most accurate. Granted it is most likely a little old school. But the numbers do add up if you are burning fat rather then carbs for energy. Fat is 9 calories per gram and carbs are 4 calories per gram. So if you are only burning stored fat then you are in fact burning more calories and fat then if you had eaten something...BUT I do hear what you are saying about your cardio intensity being better after you have eaten something...which is completely true...The doing cardio on an empty stomach in the morning theory works mainly from a low intensity cardio where you stay in your stable fat burning heart rate zone. Biking up hills and doing intervals is a whole different story. You NEED more than just stored fat as energy for that high intensity of cardio. I totally agree with you on that.

Originally Posted by Wrangell

Based on your knowledge of " kinesiology and sports medicine " , what would would you say is the generally accepted range for the " fat burning zone " in terms of .....

- VO2 max ?

- % Maximum Heart Rate ?

Originally Posted by thefitnessvoice

BikeSwimLaugh

You may be right. I am just going with what I have learned and found to be most effective. I usually say the proof is in the puding. And to me my body is the proof in the puding. My body and body fat % as well as others has shown to me that what ever I am doing and having others do is working. This is why I stand behind what I have learned and experimented with......

Originally Posted by MB1

I hope we can agree that fasted cardio does not burn more calories than non-fasted cardio. I also hope we can agree that fat utilisation is a function of exercise intensity and body conditioning.

For me, that is enough to give it a go - each person makes their own choice.

I still don't like the 'fat you've had for a long time' approach. There is an explanation wrt metabolism. Maybe someone can shed some light.

I think it will be unproductive to address the specific case of your trainer any further. The points I brought up are still very possible - and researching them will be more enabling than simply saying 'fat you've had for a long time".

If you were loosing fat in that nice range while burning many calories you may have been eating up to a healthy deficit. The poster has been loosing fat at a much faster rate. The poster has not given any evidence of tracking his/her caloric intake. The poster is already talking about being hungry and reducing caloric intake further in an attemp to break the plateu. All good reasons to introduce the concept of starvation mode.