question

[faz]

having read this on another forum.

"Training tip given by Alwyn Cosgrove on T-Nation:

Fasted Cardio: Are You F'ing Kidding?

Let's take two twins, both 200 lbs, both training to get lean. One difference: one of them eats two eggs and does 30 minutes of cardio three days per week. The other does 30 minutes of cardio, three days per week and THEN eats two eggs. What's the difference in terms of fat loss after six months? I'll tell you — no f*cking difference. Thirty minutes of steady state cardio will burn about 300 calories. Three times per week = 900 calories. Add that up for 26 weeks and we get 23,400 calories or 6.6 lbs of fat. If doing it fasted burned 30% more (which it doesn't), you're looking at another 2 lbs of fat in that same six month period, or an additional 0.07 pounds per week. Aerobic training doesn't do a hell of a lot for real world fat loss. Even if you're hungry. "

i was thinking using two eggs is not an ideal example.

if everything was equall ie diet (defecit) training cals burned per day etc but twin A did 30mins ss-cardio fasted then ate a breakfast containing protein/fats/carbs,twin B ate a breakfast before ss-cardio containing protein/fats/carbs, and the rest of the day they ate the same food,would there be a difference in either fat-loss or body composition over say 6mths.

because twin A is using mostly fat during cardio,would his fat loss be more.

 

[Fausto]

Faz

I think because of the fact that ss cardio only burns calories while it is being done and not afterwards, the difference would be minimal.

My opinion, if it is important for you to do cardio in a fasted state, and I also believe it has better fat burning abilities, then rather do HIIT type cardio or even better Tabata, which is sad to burn 9x more fat than ss cardio, because it has a better metabolic effect and keeps burning fat through the day .

 

[faz]

<div>
(Fausto @ Jan. 14 2008,10:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Faz

I think because of the fact that ss cardio only burns calories while it is being done and not afterwards, the difference would be minimal.

My opinion, if it is important for you to do cardio in a fasted state, and I also believe it has better fat burning abilities, then rather do HIIT type cardio or even better Tabata, which is sad to burn 9x more fat than ss cardio, because it has a better metabolic effect and keeps burning fat through the day .</div>
fausto the point is that in a fasted state,HIIT or tabata will use more sugars than fat and may be catabolic,if your HR is under say 120bpm then you are more likely to burn fat as the major source,but is it optimal or as i said about the twins will it make a difference.

 

[Totentanz]

faz, have you read about Lyle's stubborn fat protocol?

The main goal there is to get fatty acids mobilized so that they can be burned, not so much simply burning calories. It involves first intervals and then steady state. Oh, and it sucks real bad to do.

Sporto saw some awesome results using a new version of it that is apparently still top secret.

 

[dkm1987]

<div>
(Fausto @ Jan. 14 2008,05:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think because of the fact that ss cardio only burns calories while it is being done and not afterwards</div>
Not true

 

[faz]

<div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 14 2008,13:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">faz, have you read about Lyle's stubborn fat protocol?

The main goal there is to get fatty acids mobilized so that they can be burned, not so much simply burning calories.  It involves first intervals and then steady state.  Oh, and it sucks real bad to do.

Sporto saw some awesome results using a new version of it that is apparently still top secret.</div>
no gonna have to check it out.

 

[Fausto]

<div>
(Dan Moore @ Jan. 14 2008,15:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Jan. 14 2008,05:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Not true</div>

Dan...I read this somewhere before and it sounded pretty convincing to me...proof?

 

[Totentanz]

<div>
(faz @ Jan. 14 2008,08:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 14 2008,13:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">faz, have you read about Lyle's stubborn fat protocol?

The main goal there is to get fatty acids mobilized so that they can be burned, not so much simply burning calories. It involves first intervals and then steady state. Oh, and it sucks real bad to do.

Sporto saw some awesome results using a new version of it that is apparently still top secret.</div>
no gonna have to check it out.</div>
Just keep in mind that with the SFP, the purpose is getting those last bits of stubborn fat, not so much general fat loss. There wouldn't be much point in doing it if you aren't fairly lean already, so I don't know if it has much to do with Alwyn's point in the article you posted. With fatter (or &quot;less lean&quot individuals, there probably isn't much point in doing fasted cardio.

 

[dkm1987]

<div>
(Fausto @ Jan. 14 2008,08:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan Moore @ Jan. 14 2008,15:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">[/quote]

Not true</div>

Dan...I read this somewhere before and it sounded pretty convincing to me...proof?</div>
Well whatever you read that from is not telling the total story.

Whether steady state of HIIT is used there is still an energy expense post workout. What changes is that in steady state the magnitude of EPOC is generally smaller but linearly correlated to duration. So the longer the exercise bout the larger the total EPOC, within reasonable steady state intensities. In HIIT the EPOC response is Curvilinear with albeit a higher magnitude but shorter duration, but does track with time so that the longer duration of intermittant would also impact the curve. In either case there is post exercise energy expenditure.

Proof? do a PM search on &quot;excess postexercise oxygen consumption&quot; or even &quot;exercise intensity duration 24-h energy expenditure &quot;

In either case the total contribution is low-ish and it is the energy utilized &quot;during&quot; the bout that has a predominant effect on TEE throughout the day.

Now to the actual question, it does make a difference whether fed or fasted during the exercise, in an acute setting, as there is a higher fat oxidation occurring in fasted state. If eating a high fat meal before the training bout there would still be a high fat oxidation rate but where the fatty acids are coming from may be different, but it would also have to be an exercise bout that has not hit the &quot;cross-over&quot; point, the point where intensity is so great that the predominate fuel used is glycogen.

Again that was speaking of the acute response, in the overall sense, it's makes no difference as the main objective is still met, IE more calories expended than taken in.

 

[Martin Levac]

I prefer HIIT. The benefits are more numerous yet include ss-cardio's benefits and are better to boot. The risks and negative effects are nil unless we're stupid or have some kind of heart condition. It takes a fraction of the time. I feel better. I will look better if I take sprinters vs long distance runners as a basis for comparison. Sprinters look so much better, I think. Maybe it's because they have bigger muscles and no fat to speak of.

Yeah. I prefer HIIT.

 

[faz]

(dan)
Now to the actual question, it does make a difference whether fed or fasted during the exercise, in an acute setting, as there is a higher fat oxidation occurring in fasted state. If eating a high fat meal before the training bout there would still be a high fat oxidation rate but where the fatty acids are coming from may be different, but it would also have to be an exercise bout that has not hit the &quot;cross-over&quot; point, the point where intensity is so great that the predominate fuel used is glycogen.

so in your opinion dan would twin A who is fasted have a better fat loss over 6mths than twin B or would they be exactly the same.

 

[Fausto]

Faz

B) My opinion may differ from Dan's but I think the fasted twin will score somewhat better as his body will be forced to use fat as a source of energy after a certain amount of ss cardio.

If we look at Lyle's approach one has to first do HIIT and then ss Cardio to first release fat to the blood stream, then oxidize it into the musclres from the blood.

here you go:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Getting rid of stubborn bodyfat - by Lyle McDonald

Without going into the brutally long and complicated mental computations that led me to this (and I'm still working on the overall scheme), here's my current thoughts on how to approach it.

First and foremost, this is one of the places where morning/pre-breakfast cardio is probably crucially important.

An hour or two before cardio, take 200 mg caffeine with 1-3 grams of L-tyrosine (NO ephedrine).

There are two segments to the cardio:

- The first segment is for mobilization, to get those stubborn fatty acids out of the fat cell.
- The second segment is the oxidation part, to burn them off in the muscle.

For the first segment of the cardio, use a machine that you don't normally use. So if you normally do the treadmill, do the first segment on the stairmaster or bike or something. Just make it different.

First segment:
warmup: 3-5 minutes
go hard: 5-10 minutes. I mean hard, as hard as you can stand for the entire time. This will NOT be fun on lowered blood glucose. I've considered putting intervals here but haven't found the data I need to make up my mind. If you do intervals, go something like 5X1' all out with a 1' break (10' total intervals)

Rest 5', just sit on your butt, drink water, try not to puke.

Go to your normal cardio machine. Do at least 30 minutes at moderate/high moderate intensity (below lactate threshold but decent intensity). I'd say 45' maximum here but I'm still making up my mind and looking at data.

Go home, and wait and hour before having a small protein meal (25-50 grams or so). No dietary fat. 2-3 hours later, go back to normal diet eating. Your daily calories shouldn't be any different than they were already, they are just distributed differently, you only have 100-200 immediately after cardio, and then the rest afterwards.

I'd do that maybe 3 days per week to start, and see what happens.

Why this works

To get stubborn fat mobilized, you have to overcome a fairly severe resistance in terms of both blood flow and lipolysis, this requires very high concentrations of catecholamines (adrenaline/noradrenaline). Sadly, jacking up levels of catecholamines (necessary for mobilization) limits burning in the muscle which is why you follow the high intensity with low intensity.

Basically, you jack up levels to get the fat mobilized, and then let them fall so that the fatty acid can be burned in the muscle.

I have a study showing that Ephedrine before intense activity lowers the catecholamine response, that's the reason for avoiding it. Studies also show a lower than normal catecholamine response as people adapt to a given type of cardio; doing a different machine will result in a higher catecholamine response than you'd other wise get.

The bigger problem with stubborn fat has to do with:

- Blood flow to the fat cells: which is typically very low, odds are your butt is cold to the touch compared to other areas of your body
- It's harder to mobilize: both because of impaired blood flow, and because of adrenoceptor issues.

Oral yohimbe (0.2 mg/kg) can be effective when used over the long term. Don't take it within 3-4 hours of taking ephedrine, and start with a half-dose to assess tolerance (some people get really freaky responses from it). IF you can find pharmaceutical yohimbine, it's far far better than the herbal version (and most of the herbal versions are crap, the only one I trust is Twinlab Yohimbe Fuel).

Taking the yohimbe with caffeine prior to morning cardio does seem to help with very stubborn fat.</div>

 

[faz]

cheers fausto mate,but as tot said thats for stubborn fat loss ie if your already in the low diget fat%

and i agree that the fasted twin will burn more fat from the of,as he would have no carbs to burn,but would it make a difference if they both ate exactly the same meals per day cals etc.

 

[Fausto]

Probably minimal as Dan puts it...I'm not an expert on these things, probably end up putting my foot in my mouth!

 

[imported_etothepii]

<div>
(faz @ Jan. 15 2008,06:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">cheers fausto mate,but as tot said thats for stubborn fat loss ie if your already in the low diget fat%

and i agree that the fasted twin will burn more fat from the of,as he would have no carbs to burn,but would it make a difference if they both ate exactly the same meals per day cals etc.</div>
Could it make a difference in body composition?

 

[faz]

<div>
(etothepii @ Jan. 17 2008,04:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(faz @ Jan. 15 2008,06:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">cheers fausto mate,but as tot said thats for stubborn fat loss ie if your already in the low diget fat%

and i agree that the fasted twin will burn more fat from the of,as he would have no carbs to burn,but would it make a difference if they both ate exactly the same meals per day cals etc.</div>
Could it make a difference in body composition?</div>
maybe not sure

thats why i asked the question,thought someone with a bit more knowledge on that subject might know better.