An old heated debate: Cardio on empty stomach (morning) vs. full stomach (anytime)...long read.

[MR. BMJ]

Well, here was a pretty cool thread in regards to the debate of doing cardio on an empty vs full stomach between Fukkenshredded and ass . Instead of putting it into a link, then having the asssholes over at the other board delete and ruin it, I will just state the writers name and put into quotes what they stated. I'll cut out some of the B.S. posts, and just add the pertinent stuff because it was a couple pages.

Here is the original question that started the thread stated July 2003:

sk* asked:

Final word on cardio on empty stomach?

Some say it's the easiest way to burn muscle and some say it's not. What's the final word on it?

Should I have a protein or a carb drink right before morning cardio? Or will having it just burn those calories instead of burning the fat?

I really don't wanna hear from the cardio sucks crew. A lot of the reason I wanna do cardio is for fun and to reduce water retention, but if it will help burn a little fat than even better.

So what's the final word?

-sk



fukkenshredded:

It works better on an empty stomach. I've tried both with careful observation, and lots of colleagues have done the same...the results are consistently better if done prior to eating.



NM:

Okay, let's put the effectiveness or non effectiveness of cardio aside for a moment:

Doing ANY exercise on an empty stomach will not burn more fat. It is biologically impossible.

If you don't mind it, fine.

If you like it, fine.

But it will NOT burn more fat than if you train on a full stoach, or a half full stomach.

But it won't be the final word for a long time. Myths die hard.




fukkenshredded:

Nelson, you got one thing right--myths die hard.

Of course, the reason the idea about cardio on an empty stomach won't die is because it's true, see. Not a myth.

Now granted, the logic about the reasons could be flawed, but the results are undeniable.

A point of fact--this can easily be proven any time by anyone willing to try both approaches and document the results. You ought to try it sometime and document it, day by day, for eight weeks. Compare it to what you do now. Then get back to us on this myth.



RADAR:

cardio will not cause muscle waasting---and fasting in the morn-nite Then cardio will dip into those fat stores ..thats what i did.. and whats the point for having something in your stomach before cardio- ok now you got energy the calories intake will be used for energy...wheres the fat burning..i mean on an empty stomach cardio will trigger the damand for carories thus burning fat.




JUICE AUTHORITY:

I totally agree with you [RADAR].

For the record...Where is the evidence that back's up Nelson's position that "Doing ANY exercise on an empty stomach will not burn more fat. It is biologically impossible"??? There is NONE!



NM:

[Juice Authority,] Instead of me presenting a litany of logic explaining this (since I've done so in my books, articles and even on this bard) let's keep it simple:

Show me evidence that it does.

You see, when people say that it worked for them, it's just a perception. With less food in your stomach, you're more likely to look leaner. Even the running itself will make you sweat whch gives a leaner appearence. But you do not burn more fat. As far as people losing 25 pounds over the long run, I'm sure there were other factors involved besides running on an empty stomach.

I have tried it Funkenshredded. And I'm monitored dozens of people doing it both ways. No difference.

So, JA. The ball's in your court kid. Show me all that evidence you prize so highly. I want double blind, peer reviewed university conducted research stdies that prove, (not conclude or speculate) , that doing cardio on an empty stomach burns more fat (not uses more glucose) than training with nutrients present.

Go.



jg1

Who said anything about running?




NM:

Running, stationary bike...whatever.

satch. With all due respect. I think I've recieved a lot more close mindedness than I give. Should I be more open mnded to wrong ideas?




jg1:

And what other factors besides a dialed in diet?



NM:

How about a better anabolic enviorment and/or less caloric intake than when you did a comparble amount of aerobics on a full stomach?

There are lots of factors. I wasn't there to monitor everything you did. There may be something even you overlooked. At any rate, it wasn't just the cardio on an empty stomach.

Flexed. Glad to see it's working out for you, but the same principle applies. Everyone's always scraming for proof. So far, on this issue, I'm only hearing opinion. There are lots of guys who are ripped without cardio, no less cardio on an empty stomach. I got down to 6% with no cardio at all and no thermogenics.

And for the record, please do not compare me with JA. He is a little kid that follows me around contradicting himself and getting proven wrong at every turn. We have no differences. He's just a heckler. Period.



jg1:

Of course it wasn't. If my diet was shit I wouldn't have lost a single pound of body fat, even with the hour of morning cardio every day. If my diet was on point and I did NO cardio what so ever would I still have lost body fat? Sure I would have, but not at the rate I've lost it over these 10 weeks. I went from a comfortable size 36" jeans, to loose 30's. Not too mention the LBM I've added since I began dieting.....and I was natural the first 8 weeks of the diet (I added 40lbs to both my squats and DL's in this time frame).

But hey, what do I know.....cardio is bullshit, and macronutrient timing is even more bullshit, right? :rolleyes:



NM:

[jg1] ............................................

Now you got it right.



juice authority:

Nelson, when I was cutting I would take 2 NYC's on an empty stomach and run the treadmill at 6:30AM in the morning before work for 45 minutes at 65%. The results I got from that speak for itself but I am also an advocate of presenting scientific data that collaborates my position as I have done in the past with you. Even at that you still refuse to see the truth yet your book is titled "The Truth about Bodybuilding". How ironic and contradictory. Be it as it may, I will present scientific facts that support the notion that cardio on an empty stomach in the AM will burn fat.



NM:

ja, Anytime you're ready.



juice authority:

Here you go Nelson -

Running on empty
by Josh Salzmann


I prefer exercising right after I wake up. Is it bad to work out on an empty stomach?

The advantage of working out on an empty stomach first thing in the morning is that you have just enough energy stored from the night before to fuel your workout, and you also have a greater chance of burning stored fat, which will cause you to lose weight. This is due to the fact that, because your stomach is empty, you are more likely to burn calories already stored as fat, as opposed to using calories from recently digested food in your system.

Working out on an empty stomach does not speed up your metabolism. But it does help to kick-start it by increasing your heart rate, circulation and the amount of incoming oxygen, all things which help your body function more efficiently throughout the day.

Exercising for more than 30 minutes on an empty stomach or at the end of the day is unhealthy and unadvisable since, without the necessary energy to fuel your workout, your body will start using your muscles as an energy source. This is not an efficient form of energy, and you may overexert yourself and experience dizziness or dehydration.

Weight training on an empty stomach is also not advisable, since a lot of energy is required for this kind of workout. Without the necessary energy, you won’t be able to work your muscles efficiently and increase muscle mass. Weight training is one of the best ways to burn calories and consequently lose weight, because the more muscle you have, the more calories you burn. So, despite what most people think, starving yourself is the least effective way to lose weight, especially if you want the results to last.

Although working out on an empty stomach can help you lose weight, it will not happen overnight, and should not be used as a long-term solution to weight loss. Maintaining a healthy weight requires a lifestyle that includes a balanced diet and regular exercise.

For more information about Josh Salzmann, visit www.salzmann-fitness.com.

November 2001

The question-of-the-month for November comes from Paul in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, who asks about pre-workout food intake and training on an empty stomach. His question is:

Dear Mike:

My question regards pre-workout food intake. I get up and get to the gym first thing in the morning and it's tough to get a meal in. Can I work out on an empty stomach? If I need to eat beforehand, what and how much of an interval before I hit the gym?

Dear Paul:

Thank you for your great question. This is one of the most important issues when it comes to gaining muscle. Eating before lifting weights is a NECESSITY. Training on an empty stomach (i.e. first thing in the morning before eating) will cause your body to dip into protein stores for energy. As all of you know, muscle is made up of protein. Therefore, if you lift before eating, you will burn muscle. Obviously, this is not what we want to do. So, yes, make sure you eat before training. What should you eat? I recommend eating a meal that consists of 65% carbohydrates, 30% protein, and 5% fat 45-90 minutes before training. Experiment with this time frame to find out what works best for you. Some people need more time after eating than others.

On the other hand, I do recommend doing cardio first thing in the morning on an empty stomach. This is the best way to burn body fat. I have seen some studies that say doing cardio in this manner can burn 400%-600% more body fat than doing cardio after having a carbohydrate meal.

What if you train in the morning and don't have time to do both your workout and cardio? Your best option would be to eat in the morning and then train (as I recommend above). You would then do your cardio last thing at night before going to bed (i.e. you would not eat anything after doing your cardio).

You may also want to check out the June 2000 Question-of-the-Month where I give a sample pre- and post-workout meal.

Good luck and keep training hard. Thanks again for your question.

As always, don't forget to visit the Past Qs & As and my Training Tips section for more great tips and training info.

Until next month, train hard and stay healthy.

Mike Francois



Here's more:

NFPT Personal Trainer Magazine

by
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nfpt.com/Library/Article...er_training.htm

Have you ever heard the phrase “stay hungry”? If you’re a long-term bodybuilding fan chances are you have. The Austrian Oak himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, made this phrase popular. So popular in fact that one of the first films he ever appeared in was called Stay Hungry! Once again it seems the bodybuilding community is one step ahead of the scientists. It turns out that hunger pangs can generally be relieved by a bout of moderate to intense resistance exercise, and that training performance is enhanced when training on an empty stomach.


The practice of training hungry definitely should be considered a vital weapon in all resistance exercise programs. In the simplest of terms, resistance exercise and eating do not mix! Moreover, hunger pangs in themselves should not dictate meal timing. In fact, the sensation of hunger has absolutely nothing to do with intelligently planned meal timing. For example, the post-exercise meal is considered by many experts to be the most important meal of the day, as it is vital that recovery energy be provided as soon as possible following a workout. The replacement of expended energy and the maintenance of a positive nitrogen balance is a must. This post-exercise meal should ideally be ingested within a very short period after the workout. And, as we now know, the exercise just performed has effectively soothed the nagging pre-workout hunger pangs. This means that to eat intelligently, more often than not, one needs to eat in the absence of hunger pangs (directly after the exercise session for example). Hence, the sensation of hunger should play no roll in establishing proper meal timing and practicing healthy eating habits, rather it should be considered a preliminary starvation warning to be avoided. The faster the metabolism, the more often the warning. It can be generalized that when adhering to an optimum nutrition program hunger pangs should not even be experienced (except just prior to the workout), as meal timing should be quite frequent.


Training hungry also has biological value. Upon eating, food travels to the small intestine where almost all digestion occurs. The conversion and use of broken down nutrients becomes a priority to the body. In order to transport these newly absorbed nutrients to various organs and body tissues, the blood vessels in and around muscle tissues constrict while vessels in and around digestion dilate. This forces blood away from muscles and towards the digestive system, minimizing oxygen and nutrient provision to the muscles. In understanding this physiological occurrence, imagine ingesting food just prior to training. Digestion is occurring at the same time activity is being performed. This results in a “tug-of-war” between muscles and digestion, both desperately in need of increased blood flow for the purpose of oxygen and nutrient transport. What happens as a result? Exercise will be more taxing, and digestion will be compromised as neither will receive adequate blood flow. What are typical signs of this “tug-of-war”? Excessive rapid breathing, abnormally high exercise heart rate, nausea, and dizziness. The degree of discomfort and severity of the above symptoms will vary according to the intensity being used. When these symptoms occur, it would be appropriate to stop training.


What considerations should be made when setting up the pre-workout meal, you ask?

#1-The kind of food ingested in the pre-workout meal is important. Proteins and lots of light carbs would be appropriate. Generally speaking, select complex carbs that are digested easily to insure there is minimal digestion occurring at the onset of your workout. Since it is always important to include protein in every meal, and protein takes somewhat longer to assimilate, meal timing is also among the most important considerations in pre-workout meal planning, and will be discussed later.


#2-Make your pre-workout meal a small one. There is no reason to ingest any more than about 500 calories before a resistance training workout since the majority of energy used during resistance training will come from inside muscle tissues. This low number of total pre-workout calories should help to insure there is minimal digestion occurring at the onset of exercise, thus freeing up more blood for the purpose of transporting much needed nutrients and oxygen to working muscles for optimum performance.


#3-Eat the pre-workout meal about 2-3 hours before your scheduled workout. In most cases, this should provide plenty of time for the absorption of the small 500 calorie pre-workout meal.


In summary, workout performance is improved greatly when training hungry through proper pre-workout meal planning, and the consequent re-routing of the cardiovascular system. Of additional importance is the knowledge that hunger should never dictate meal planning. In a perfect world, hunger should only be experienced just prior to a workout. The frequency of meal timing throughout the remainder of the day should be such that hunger is not experienced. There you have it. NEVER eat when you’re hungry...train! And when the hunger is gone...eat! Good luck and great gains!


I took this excerpt (left out the part about how he said to maintain a low-fat diet!) from an article on askmen.com by Ian Lee entitled "Fat Burning Morning Workouts." Just adding some more info on the positives of AM cardio on am empty stomach!

Now, here's why cardio training in the morning is a great way to blast fat:
Your levels of muscle and liver glycogen (also called stored carbohydrates) are normally very low when you wake up first thing in the morning. With depleted glycogen and lower blood sugar, you'll give your body the perfect environment to burn fat instead of carbohydrates.

Carbohydrates or glycogen are your body's primary and preferred source of energy. When they're low, your body will tap into your secondary energy reserve, which is your body fat. The idea here is similar to when the engine taps into the car's reserve tank because it's low on fuel.

Obviously, your body is way more complex than your car's gas tank. It always burns up a combination of carbohydrates and fat. However, the less carbohydrates you have, the more fat your body will burn.

Are you convinced yet? If so, great -- but expect an adjustment period. The same way you're jet-lagged after an overseas trip or drowsy when you suddenly have to switch from the graveyard shift to a regular 9 to 5 shift, training in the morning will require some lag time.

Normally, it should take approximately three weeks for your body to fully adjust to the time change. You'll start feeling fully energized; you'll wake up more easily and will generally be more alert.

Now all you need is a louder alarm clock to help you get up those first few weeks. Before you know it, you'll be a lean, mean, morning machine. Good luck and keep on pumpin'.


By Tom Venuto

When is the best time of day to do your aerobic exercise? The answer is any time! The most important thing is that you just do it. Continuous cardiovascular exercise, such as walking, jogging, stairclimbing, or cycling, sustained for at least 30 minutes, will burn body fat no matter when you do it. However, if you want to get the maximum benefits possible from every minute you invest in your workouts, then you should consider getting up early and doing cardio before you eat your first meal - even if you're not a "morning person." Early morning aerobic exercise on an empty stomach has three major advantages over exercising later in the day.

First of all, morning cardio burns more fat! Early in the morning before you eat, your levels of muscle and liver glycogen (stored carbohydrate) are low. If you eat dinner at 7 p.m and you eat breakfast at 7 a.m., that's 12 hours without food. During this 12-hour overnight fast, your levels of glycogen slowly decline to provide glucose for various bodily functions that go on even while you sleep. As a result, you wake up in the morning with depleted glycogen and lower blood sugar - the optimum environment for burning fat instead of carbohydrate. How much more fat you'll burn is uncertain, but some studies have suggested that up to 300% more fat is burned when cardio is done in a fasted, glycogen-depleted state.

So how exactly does this work? It's quite simple, really. Carbohydrate (glycogen) is your body's primary and preferred energy source. When your primary fuel source is in short supply, this forces your body to tap into its secondary or reserve energy source; body fat. If you do cardio immediately after eating a meal, you'll still burn fat, but you'll burn less of it because you'll be burning off the carbohydrates you ate first. You always burn a combination of fat and carbohydrate for fuel, but depending on when you exercise, you can burn a greater proportion of fat relative to carbohydrate. If doing cardio first thing in the morning is not an option for you, then the second best time to do it would be immediately after weight training. Lifting weights is anaerobic (carbohydrate-burning) by nature, and therefore depletes muscle glycogen. That's why a post lifting cardio session has a similar effect as morning cardio on an empty stomach.

The second benefit you'll get from early morning cardio sessions is what I call the "afterburn" effect. When you do a cardio session in the morning, you not only burn fat during the session, but you also continue to burn fat at an accelerated rate after the workout. Why? Because an intense session of cardiovascular exercise can keep your metabolism elevated for hours after the session is over. If you do cardio at night, you will still burn fat during the session, so you definitely benefit from it. However, nighttime cardio fails to take advantage of the "afterburn" effect because your metabolism drops like a ton of bricks as soon as you go to sleep. While you sleep, your metabolic rate is slower than any other time of the day.

Burning more fat isn't the only reason you should do your cardio early. The third benefit of morning workouts is the "rush" and feeling of accomplishment that stays with you all day long after an invigorating workout. Exercise can become a pleasant and enjoyable experience, but the more difficult or challenging it is for you, the more important it is to get it out of the way early. When you put off any task you consider unpleasant, it hangs over you all day long, leaving you with a feeling of guilt, stress and incompleteness (not to mention that you are more likely to "blow off" an evening workout if you are tired from a long day at work or if your pals try to persuade you to join them at the pub for happy hour.)

You might find it hard to wake up early in the morning and get motivated to workout. But think back for a moment to a time in your life when you tackled a difficult task and you finished it. Didn't you feel great afterwards? Completing any task, especially a physically challenging one, gives you a "buzz." When the task is exercise, the buzz is physiological and psychological. Physiologically, exercise releases endorphins in your body. Endorphins are opiate-like hormones hundreds of times more powerful than the strongest morphine. Endorphins create a natural "high" that makes you feel positively euphoric! Endorphins reduce stress, improve your mood, increase circulation and relieve pain. The "high" is partly psychological too. Getting up early and successfully achieving a small goal kick starts your day and gives you feelings of completion, satisfaction and accomplishment. For the rest of the day you feel happy and you feel less stress knowing that a difficult part of the day is behind you.

So, you say you're not a morning person? Take heart; neither am I. I can sleep in like you wouldn't believe! But I get up anyway because I know the effort is worth the results. When I have a bodybuilding goal that I am clearly focused on, such as reaching 4% or 5% body fat for a competition, I'm on my Stairmaster for 45 minutes every morning at the crack of dawn without fail. Sure it's a challenge at first, but you know what? After a few short weeks, It's no longer a chore and I'm "in the groove" - and you will be too. Just try it. Make a commitment to yourself to do it for just 21 days. Once those 21 days have gone by, you'll already be leaner and you'll be on your way to making morning workouts a habit that's as natural as brushing your teeth or taking a shower. Once you start getting used to feeling that buzz, you'll become "positively addicted" to it. The more you do it, the more you'll want to do it. Before you know it, early morning cardio will be your new habit, you'll be leaner, your metabolism will be faster and you'll feel fantastic all day long!



fukkenshredded:

Hmmm.

Well, several relevant studies have now been posted, and there are dozens of other studies that verify this same thing. Morning cardio on an empty stomach is more effective for fatloss than the same regimen performed in the evening on a full stomach.

Not only is the logic at once obvious, but now you have the 'scientific data' you requested.

Nelson, I certainly do not mean to be confrontational here, but I am a bit confused at your commitment to sophistry. It is a mystery why someone with your intellect and experience would adhere so stringently to an idea that not only defies logic, but has been disproven.

Especially when I consider your claims of having studied this very issue in a regimented, deliberate fashion and documented the results 'for dozens of people'.

Surely if that were the case you would have published the specific routines and results, yes? Isn't that research worth publishing in detail? I must admit that I cannot find very many publications of yours, and the one's that I have examined have not included the specifics of this study (or studies) that you conducted.

I would expect to find in your study a detailed synopsis of diet, training routine, and daily bodyweight/composition records, and that the diet and training regimen would be identicle for both groups with the exception of the time of day and state of nutritional intake for the control group in relation to when the cardio was performed.

I would expect to see identicle blood glucose levels for both groups if it is in fact true that the impact of the exercise was identicle for both groups.

Or, I would expect to see some data supporting the notion that blood glucose levels have nothing to do with energy expenditure.

In fact, I am already curios as to how you would answer these questions:

Where does the body draw from for aerobic exertion if blood glucose is below, say 40?

Does the body react identically to anaerobic exercise and aerobic exercise?

Will the body completely deplete blood glucose while exercising?

What causes the body to burn glucose preferentially, and what is the alternative source of energy?

What causes a body to burn protien instead of fat, and vice versa?

I think that by answering these questions you can help me understand the reasoning behind your position, and that way I can have some actual information to consider instead of an opinion.

Is that fair enough?

Again, I am not trying to sound arrogant or condescending here, because I am open to the possibility that I and many others are mistaken about this, and that our findings are attributable to something other than what we attribute them to, in which case I am eager to discover what that might be. It's just that I am one of few who actually get down to sub-6% levels of fat, and ALL of the people I know that achieve this believe the way that I do, and coupled with my own study (yes I documented my own results thoroughly and in an accurate way) on myself, you have the reasons why I subscribe to this way of thinking.

In other words, its not only obvious, but I've proven it to myself.

Would you be willing to help me understand the errors in my logic?



transporter:

Let's take a look at the reasoning for doing cardio in the morning on an empty stomach...

1. Glycogen is depleted therefore more fat is burned - This is the major benefit people who push this method use to support their position. What they fail to realize is that anyone with weight training experience has (or should have) more muscle than is needed to sustain a healthy life. All of this extra muscle is detrimental to the survival of a human! Why? First of all, the individual body has one purpose in life. That purpose is survival. Fat is a much more efficient energy source for survival because it is not energy costly - it does not require calories to sustain. On top of this, fat is slower burning, as it is more calories dense. Therefore muscle will be burned before fat when in a state of starvation, as fat would keep you alive longer! That's the catch - just because glycogen stores are depleted that doesn't mean the body will just go straight to fat stores for its energy. How great that would be! Unfortunately, it's just not that simple. In the morning, glycogen is substantially depleted, in effect, so is ATP. If you have read some of my other articles you would know that ATP is the only source of energy for muscular contraction.

Heavy productive weight training depletes glycogen and ATP with each contraction. ATP is not only the fuel for muscular contraction, it also plays a large role in protein synthesis and repair itself. After weight training ATP and glycogen are depleted (heavy weight training uses the anaerobic glycolysis mechanism on ATP production), and time is needed for glycogen stores to replenish. Glycogen replenishment can take up to 3 days to complete! If you deplete more glycogen than is necessary you are putting your body through unnecessary stress, which will inhibit your bodies ability to build muscle! Less ATP means less energy for proteins synthesis. It's apparent that you want to stimulate as much muscle growth as possible, with the smallest amount of glycogen and ATP depletion, which means that you should train as little as possible, while still achieving the desired results.

So how does this matter in this situation? Cardio in the morning on an empty stomach means cardio with little glycogen, and thus little ATP. Remember that cardiovascular work requires muscle fibers to contract. Just because an activity is aerobic doesn't mean it does not require muscle fibers to perform the work. The primary source of contraction during aerobic work is the Type I muscle fibers. They are called upon during aerobic work because they have a long fatigue threshold meaning - they can maintain contraction for long periods of time. Type I fibers use the oxidative phosphorylation (Kreb's cycle and electron transport) - an aerobic mechanism for energy production. This is the method of energy production in which the body metabolizes carbohydrates and fats to produce energy. The body may also use protein when carbohydrate and/or fat energy are not available through a process called gluconeogenesis. Carbs are used primarily for this, and consequently in aerobic work. This method of energy production produces, bar far, the most amount of energy. You can literally keep going forever until you pass out with this energy system. The reason for this is because the body will catabolize itself in order to meet energy demands. You guessed it - IT WILL BREAK DOWN MUSCLE TISSUE FOR ENERGY. Don't get me wrong here, the body will also break down fat for energy. I'm sure you have been taught in high school biology that fat is the preferred energy source during aerobic exercise. This is completely true for those who do not have any "excess" muscle sitting on their bones. You see, when we weight train we create an environment in which the body is forced to synthesize new proteins in order to protect itself from future stress. This is a basic principle in weight training - super compensation and overload. Overload is the means in inducing progressive super compensation. The body will not synthesize protein it doesn't need. This matters because during aerobic exercise the body has three choices in going about meeting the energy requirements. It can...

1. Use stored glycogen.

2. Use stored fat.

3. Use stored amino acids (muscle).

When we do cardio in the morning on an empty stomach we pretty much eliminate option one. Muscle glycogen stores can never be 100% depleted, if they were we wouldn't be able to move. But, there are three places where glycogen can be found in the body (remember - we don't actually eat glycogen). The first place is in the liver, the second place is in the muscles, and the third place is in the blood stream. In the morning, after your 6-10 hours with no energy (food) liver glycogen will be just about depleted, blood glycogen will have been burned for energy, and muscle glycogen will have been severely depleted. What this means is that your body is in a state of extreme catabolism, it is literally breaking down muscle at an alarming rate. This is because when the liver runs out of glycogen it takes alanine, arginine and the other substrates, from the muscles in order to make more. This is muscle breakdown (atrophy). After waking up, you start to do activities (yes, going to the bathroom and watching TV is an "activity"). What this means is that you are increasing the bodies immediate energy requirement, which means - more muscle being broken down to meet energy needs. Then, the worst thing you can do at this time is to introduce aerobic activity. This means another increase in energy requirement, and further increase in muscle catabolism. Not a good situation to put your body in. Simply having a light meal before this activity would prevent all of this. The body would be taken out of its extremely catabolic state, it would have immediate energy other than muscle to use as fuel, and you will also have more energy to do your cardio with. More effort going into your cardio equals more benefits coming out of it.

2. Increased metabolism for the rest of the day - This one is completely sensible. The thing is - the amount of food and the amount or glycogen you posses have no effect on this. Cardio in the morning is NOT a bad thing; cardio in the morning on an empty stomach is the bad thing. The solution to muscle catabolism? Eat before your cardio.
That is, in a nutshell, why cardio in the morning on an empty stomach is not beneficial



fukkenshredded:

Okay, a couple of flaws in your thinking here. First off, just because glycogen is low does NOT mean that the primary source of energy is muscle.

Here is simple proof:

A pound of muscle = 600 calories. Now, if I work out on an empty stomach and deplete my glycogen stores, and then burn another 4000 calories (I've done that many times, don't bother arguing it), then wouldn't it stand to reason that I burned up about seven pounds of muscle?

And doing this daily for say, two weeks...should I not be dead?

How do you account for the fact that I in fact lose NO muscle this way? Remember, we have a protective element with some of the chemistries we are putting in our bodies, but another thing to remember is that THE BODY BECOMES ITS FUNCTION.

IF the body is utilizing muscle to lift weights, etc, then it is NOT going to draw from the muscle cell first.

I realize that a lot of so called sciece (very little actual research backs it up) suggests that muscle deteriorates at this terrifying rate if you do cardio with no glycogen stores.

Well, it is true that something deteriorates at a terrifying rate, and its FAT.

How do I know?

Because I actually take r-ALA on an empty stomach in the a.m. along with doing cardio, all after eliminating carbs in the afternoon on the previous day.

And yet I lose no muscle, or MUCH less than what you are suggesting, and moreover, I lose fat.

Not only that, by doing such a regimen oonly twice a week I eat what I wish, more or less, and stay at about 7% NOT ON CYCLE.

I have pics of me right this second, NOT ON ANYTHING AND 7% to prove it, should anyone care to challenge my assertion.

Of course many of you will say that I have no muscle anyway...lol...and I guess you would be right if you compare me to the big boys on this board.

But lets also consider that the excessive musculature exhibited by today's mass freaks could very well be considered a pathology. Certainly the body struggles to rid itwelf of that muscle and must be manipulated chemically to maintain it even for a little while.

In light of that we can hardly blame cardio for muscle loss.

Your point about increased metabolism the rest of the day is pretty accurate as far as I know.

Sometimes scientific theory just doesn't dovetail with actual fact. That's why the actual physical studies posted carry so much more weight than any amount of scientific explanations to the contrary.

I mean, science says bumblebees can't fly, humans can't run four minute miles, and someone who looks like Lyle Lovett can't date Julia Roberts.

Science ain't fact, it's just science.



jg1:

Do you feel this really makes a difference? I've been debating about taking 100mg r-ALA 45 minutes prior to morning cardio, but wasn't sure if it was really beneficial or not.




fukkenshredded:

JG1--

I would recommend having a glass of juice close by for the first few times you ingest a lot of r-ALA before cardio, because things can get a bit dicey.

To answer your question...yeah, I think it works better. Maybe not significantly, but I can drop bodyfat really quickly when I need to by doing morning sprints in this fashion.



NM:

So...WHERE ARE THE STUDIES???

All I've seen so far is a bunch of cut and paste opinions. Just quoting someone else doesn't make it correct. I've been quoted too you know. It seems that some peoples inellects dont grasp this. They see a post, and their immediate reaction is; HE WINS!

Where are the studies? One guy contradicted himself by saying that training when energy levels are low is catabolic. Well, a lot of people's energy levels are low in the morning.

The NFPT said to consume a SMALL meal before training. (I agree)

And the last study (the only one) shwed that there was less catabolism when the rats were given whey protein before exercise.

WHERE ARE THE STUDIES PROVING YOUR POINT?!?

They all prove MINE!

Not to mention, the person with the most credibility from any of those posts is Dave Draper and he agrees with me.

Tom Venutto. Good guy. He has consulted with me and said he concurs with my concepts, so maybe this was written a while ago.

I can't make this any clearer. This is as much of a slam dunk as JA's loss of gains after using all that Clomid he said works so well. I can't spell it out any more than this people. If you can't see the facts before your eyes, I can't help you.




sk*:

Hey man,

What do you consume post cardio?

Thanks.

Also what do you think about the post from A?

-sk



fukkenshredded:

Post cardio I hit a Metrx RTD right away, usually even before the sauna.

Nelson, take another peek at poantrex's citations. Those are actual studies, sir.

As far as Dave Draper being the most credible source here on this issue...how do you figure that? Is he leaner than say, me?

If so, what about some of the guys here who look as good as he ever has...are you suggesting that he is the most credible source because he is a pro bodybuilder, or because he has conducted the most relevant research?

Again, I am left wondering why you are adhering to this the way you are. It almost seems as if you simply want to be in the minority on everything, as if that somehow qualifies you as a forward thinker.

I can certainly appreciate the fact that you do have some good knowledge in the arena of bodybuilding. That's why this is so bewildering to me. It just doesn't make since to call something wrongly without any empirical data. You calim these studies are other people's opinions. Well, what do you think scientific theories ARE? they are just that, until they are verified by empirical data. Now, we have done all we can to present both literature and experience based data...you have yet to propose a counter argument other than the claims that you have been published. Even if we are to accept that as validation (it isn't), the fact is, as I mentioned, that none of us can find your studies, your research, your science, on this issue. We all have found your opinion, but where are your documentations? What EXACTLY did you do to come about this knowledge that you are convinced that you have?

Don't pin it all on "Dave Draper agrees with me". So what. If he does, he is mistaken as well. Help us out here, Nelson...I am not trying to argue or prove myself superior, I am trying to get you to PRESENT SOME ACTUAL DATA, so that we may consider that data and rethink our postition.

Well, at least that is what I will do. My intyerest lies in learning, not in just being right about everything.

Go back and answer the questions I presented to you and correlate your answers with your logic about cardio. I'm just curious is all, like I said. the questions are not difficult, and they are not trick questions, nor are they an attempt to ridicule. I just cannot fathom reconciling those issues with your position, so I am considering the possibility that my knowledge is inadequate, and I am asking you respectfully to augment my learning.

You know, if you look on this board hard enough you will find examples of me posting retractions and admissions of error. I can admit when I am wrong, but I need to see it first. Why don't you try addressing some of us other than JA and we can have intelligent dialogue about it, even if we respectfully disagree on a given issue.

You responded to me once by saying you've tried it, along with dozens of clients, and documented the findings.

Please be so kind as to share them, if for no other reason than to help educate me in this area.

Thanks in advance.




NM:

Originally posted by Fukkenshredded
"Post cardio I hit a Metrx RTD right away, usually even before the sauna.

Nelson, take another peek at poantrex's citations. Those are actual studies, sir."
.....................................



FS, As much as I respect you contribution here, you're WAY off on this one.But do e a favor, repost the syudy in question. I dont feel like going through every post. Nowhere did I see that two groups of people trained and ate in a similar manner but one group did morning cardio on an empty stomach and lost more fat.



............................................
"FS: As far as Dave Draper being the most credible source here on this issue...how do you figure that? Is he leaner than say, me?"
............................................


At age 60, the dude looks pretty fucking awesome, bro. Besides, is the person who'e the leanest the one who's right about this? I thought we were discussing science?
Come on, you know better than to make a statement like that.

............................................




"FS: If so, what about some of the guys here who look as good as he ever has...are you suggesting that he is the most credible source because he is a pro bodybuilder, or because he has conducted the most relevant research?"


............................................


No, but he's been around longer and accomplished more than anyone here. That means something.




............................................


"FS: Again, I am left wondering why you are adhering to this the way you are. It almost seems as if you simply want to be in the minority on everything, as if that somehow qualifies you as a forward thinker."


...........................................



That's a projection on your part, and an erroneous one.


............................................


"FS: I can certainly appreciate the fact that you do have some good knowledge in the arena of bodybuilding. That's why this is so bewildering to me. It just doesn't make since to call something wrongly without any empirical data. You calim these studies are other people's opinions. Well, what do you think scientific theories ARE? they are just that, until they are verified by empirical data. Now, we have done all we can to present both literature and experience based data...you have yet to propose a counter argument other than the claims that you have been published. Even if we are to accept that as validation (it isn't), the fact is, as I mentioned, that none of us can find your studies, your research, your science, on this issue. We all have found your opinion, but where are your documentations?"

............................................


I devote a 14 page chapter to this in my first book. I'm not going to reprint it here, but be that as it may, everyone was so sure that I was wrong and this and had all this scientific study to back it up. Well...SHOW ME THE STUDIES!!!



............................................



"FS: What EXACTLY did you do to come about this knowledge that you are convinced that you have?"



............................................



It's not I just decided to contradict something. I learned all the accepted information. But I questioned it too. And after 30 years I realized what wa true and what wasn't. And now I spend my time sharing that information. Somethimes it's appreciated. Sometimes peole get belligerent. For them, it's easier to just believe the world is flat and burn the witch hat says otherwise. That's okay. I'd rather have the support of intelligent people than close minded fools.


............................................


"FS: Don't pin it all on "Dave Draper agrees with me"."

............................................


I never said that. I didn't even know his opinion on this.



............................................


"FS: So what. If he does, he is mistaken as well. Help us out here, Nelson...I am not trying to argue or prove myself superior, I am trying to get you to PRESENT SOME ACTUAL DATA, so that we may consider that data and rethink our postition."


............................................


There's plenty of actual data starting with the fat that the body still has available carbs present even when glycogen levels are low so the whole theory is moronic.


............................................


"FS: Well, at least that is what I will do. My intyerest lies in learning, not in just being right about everything."


............................................

Me too.


............................................

"FS: Go back and answer the questions I presented to you and correlate your answers with your logic about cardio. I'm just curious is all, like I said. the questions are not difficult, and they are not trick questions, nor are they an attempt to ridicule. I just cannot fathom reconciling those issues with your position, so I am considering the possibility that my knowledge is inadequate, and I am asking you respectfully to augment my learning."

"You know, if you look on this board hard enough you will find examples of me posting retractions and admissions of error. I can admit when I am wrong, but I need to see it first. Why don't you try addressing some of us other than JA and we can have intelligent dialogue about it, even if we respectfully disagree on a given issue."

............................................



Well, an intelligent dialouge between two people is impossible if one of them is just out to be mindlessly insulting . I can't believe you think this kid is even worth addressing. You can't homestly tell me that I've ever followed anyone around jst to call them names, can you? That guy is an embarassment. No. Sorry. He's appologized to me and retracted his staements four times now. Whichever way the wind the blows, that's his stance. I will not dignify his imputence with a response. He's already gotten more attenton than he deserves.


............................................



"FS: You responded to me once by saying you've tried it, along with dozens of clients, and documented the findings.

Please be so kind as to share them, if for no other reason than to help educate me in this area.

Thanks in advance."





NM: I believe I just did.



sk*:

Argh, nelson you really ignored some of the important stuff in FS's post and even misinterpreted some of it.
:(




NM:

Didn't I just do that? What, specifically, did I miss?

And BTW: Still waiting for those studies.

Why is it everyone is interestied in studies with mme but everyone else is excluded from having to provide them? Sure, THEN it's all about empirical evidence and science doesn't matter much. Where's all the concrete evidence that gives people the right to flat out disagree with me without even considering what I say and why I said it.

This is exausting. I haven't got much time left. Somebody make a point.




sk*

Man screw the studies and the other stuff, just please address this portion:

Where does the body draw from for aerobic exertion if blood glucose is below, say 40?

Does the body react identically to anaerobic exercise and aerobic exercise?

Will the body completely deplete blood glucose while exercising?

What causes the body to burn glucose preferentially, and what is the alternative source of energy?

What causes a body to burn protien instead of fat, and vice versa?





NM:

Okay.

1...Depends on the activity. 40 is pretty low, but there will still be available carbs on which to draw. If the activity requires immediate energy it will derive it from the the quickest energy sourse, that being the nutrient that requires the least amount of energy to burn. Carbs have 4 cals per gram but fat has 9. Wait a minute, there's still another 4 cal energy source available. I'll let you figure out what that is.



2...It sure can. All the body knows is stress. You can raise HR lifting weights and not raise it much running. Depends on a lot of things. Remember, serobics is just a made up word. It did not exist in any medical text until the 70's.


3...Almost impossible. If you fasted for days and just kept going,eventually, yeah. Doesn't sound like a good idea.


4...Again, the need to expend energy. Alternate sources of energy are fat and protein. (muscle) Muscle comes first unless the activity is very slovenly.


5...Lack of available carbs. Intramuscular fat isn't a great energy source, as anyone who has ever tried to lose it will tell you. The best way to lose more fat is through having more muscle, therby having a more metabolically active system. Then, you burn fat all day for normal activities as long as you aren't in a calorie surplus.



Okay?




fukkenshredded:


Never mind any of that, Nelson. I apologize for my tone in that particular post, it's just that I forget that the internet does not accurately reflect all of the nuances in regular vocal conversation.

Understand right here that I respect your contributions and your willingness to teach what you have learned.

Now, about that study you wanted...

Influence of fasting on carbohydrate and fat metabolism during rest and exercise in men
J. J. Knapik, C. N. Meredith, B. H. Jones, L. Suek, V. R. Young and W. J. Evans
US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, Massachusetts 01760.

Metabolic effects of an overnight fast (postabsorptive state, PA) or a 3.5-day fast (fasted state, F) were compared in eight healthy young men at rest and during exercise to exhaustion at 45% maximum O2 uptake. Glucose rate of appearance (Ra) and disappearance (Rd) were calculated from plasma glucose enrichment during a primed, continuous infusion of [6,6-2H]glucose. Serum substrates and insulin levels were measured and glycogen content of the vastus lateralis was determined in biopsies taken before and after exercise. At rest, whole-body glucose flux (determined by the deuterated tracer) and carbohydrate oxidation (determined from respiratory exchange ratio) were lower in F than PA, but muscle glycogen levels were similar. During exercise, glucose flux, whole-body carbohydrate oxidation, and the rate of muscle glycogen utilization were significantly lower during the fast. In the PA state, glucose Ra and Rd increased together throughout exercise. However, in the F state Ra exceeded Rd during the 1st h of exercise, causing an increase in plasma glucose to levels similar to those of the PA state. The increase in glucose flux was markedly less throughout F exercise. Lower carbohydrate utilization in the F state was accompanied by higher circulating fatty acids and ketone bodies, lower plasma insulin levels, and the maintenance of physical performance reflected by similar time to exhaustion.


Take a look at the last sentence of the abstract and tell me how you interpret that. When we reach an agreement there, I will post another study that picks up where this one left off, but let's take this one step at a time for now.



NM:

This says that after a THREE TO FIVE DAY FAST, the body started burning fatty acids and ketones. Of course. You need to fast for five days and train to exaustion before using up all the glucse in your body, at which point you'll you'll begin burning fat along with muscle. This is what I've been saying all along. Thanks for the post FS. Now, just show to this to anyone who wants to agrue with me about this.

[MR. BMJ]

fukkenshredded:

Ok, I thought you might go there. The reason the study is relevant is because we induce a similar state with the use of r-ALA. But nevermind, let's just cut to the more basic and go from there...how about:

Metabolic responses to exercise after fasting
G. L. Dohm, R. T. Beeker, R. G. Israel and E. B. Tapscott


Fasting before exercise increases fat utilization and lowers the rate of muscle glycogen depletion. Since a 24-h fast also depletes liver glycogen, we were interested in blood glucose homeostasis during exercise after fasting. An experiment was conducted with human subjects to determine the effect of fasting on blood metabolite concentrations during exercise. Nine male subjects ran (70% maximum O2 consumption) two counterbalanced trials, once fed and once after a 23-h fast. Plasma glucose was elevated by exercise in the fasted trial but there was no difference between fed and fasted during exercise. Lactate was significantly higher (P less than 0.05) in fasted than fed throughout the exercise bout. Fat mobilization and utilization appeared to be greater in the fasted trial as evidenced by higher plasma concentrations of free fatty acids, glycerol, and beta-hydroxybutyrate as well as lower respiratory exchange ratio in the fasted trial during the first 30 min of exercise. These results demonstrate that in humans blood glucose concentration is maintained at normal levels during exercise after fasting despite the depletion of liver glycogen. Homeostasis is probably maintained as a result of increased gluconeogenesis and decreased utilization of glucose in the muscle as a result of lowered pyruvate dehydrogenase activity.

Any reason this does not apply? Also, you might want to think about the slowed rate of muscle glycogen depletion before you rant too much about muscle wasting. THINK about it.

Incidentally, your comment about burning muscle can readily be countered with the simple observation that we are generally on steroids when we engage in this type of cardio. More on anticatabolic strategies later...let's just get where we agree on this first issue...



poantrex

Why bother. Its obvious that he's so damn stubborn that he'll refuse to acknowledge that we're correct - even in the face is so much evidence. I'm a manager and I run into employees like this every once in a while - they can justify something no matter what they do wrong and refuse to acknowledge being incorrect. Needless to say these types don't last very long.



fukkenshredded:

Poantrex...

This effort is for the benefit of every member, including Nelson. Nelson is a good thinker when he applies himself, and I have in fact learned a lot from him. There are not too many issues that I am educated on, but you could say I have a small bit of knowledge in this particular arena, perhaps even enough to offer some instruction...

The rarity of me having enough knowledge to post can be witnessed by the low number of posts that I have in relation to my time here.

I am not arguing with Nelson, I am offering an alternative point of view.

The correct one, as it turns out in this case, but you surely can see that this entire thread is instructive in many ways, on many levels, and is an overall benefit to all of us, including me.

See, if Nelson is able to prove me wrong, I learn. If not, he learns. Its a win win situation, not a flaming contest. I don't get mixed up in those. I ignore insults, generally (or try to) and only respond with relevant information or a quick opinion.

True, you did put up some studies, but I don't think Nelson ever read through your post.

Not to mention that a big part of this community still seems to be puzzled by this question, so we can just put it to rest with this course of dialogue.

I am actually flattered that Nelson would engage me in a debate...it takes time and effort to do so with anyone, and I genuinely appreciate his input.

Nelson, when you see this post be sure to look up #94 above.



NM:

Poantrex: "Why bother. Its obvious that he's so damn stubborn that he'll refuse to acknowledge that we're correct - even in the face is so much evidence. I'm a manager and I run into employees like this every once in a while - they can justify something no matter what they do wrong and refuse to acknowledge being incorrect. Needless to say these types don't last very long."

It's true. I'm very stubborn when it comes to logic. I refuse to ignore it. I suppose I could go along with crowd or the hero of the day, but I'd rather know the truth and be disliked. (BTW: Good to see I'm being compared to the employees at the Walmart.)

So you're saying I won't last long in this business?

Okay FS: There are couple of things about this thread that aren't jiving. Glucose was elevated in one group during exercise (?) but was not elevated in either group during exercise. (???) Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I'm tired. It also states that the same group was tested--first fed, then fasted -- and after the second session,there was more fat loss than after the first. Well, after two exercise sessions and a severe drop in caloric intake, there's bound to be SOME fat loss. That doesn't really support the argument very well though. And yes, some of those results suggest muscle wasting and the fact that peole use steroids is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

This study also states that glycogen is still present, even after a long fast and doing exercise, which is what I've been saying all along. At any rate, this test was conducted after a 24 hour fast, which has nothing to do with cardio first thing in the morning before breakfast or the long term effects of continuing this practice so it's a moot point.



juice authority:

Stubborn??? What a understatement!! Logic?? What a joke! Your reasoning on things defies all logic. The conclusions you come up with consistently lack evidence or merit. When presented with concrete evidence to the contrary you downplay and discredit the source of the information. Once again you are made to look like AN ASS not only by me and also by FS and poantrex who actually provided the scientific data you requested proving your position on the ineffectiveness of cardio on an empty stomach dead wrong. You've once again proven to the members of this board what a think-headed moron you are. One person on this thread said he reconsidered buying your book because of this. Nothing could make me happier to hear that. If this results in just one person reconsidering the purchase of your book it was worth my time. Mission accomplished!



fukkenshredded:

Nelson--

I'm prepared to accept the notion that you may be tired, because yes, you are missing the point of the two studies I posted. Perhaps you have only read the abstracts...I suggest looking at the actual studies when you are fresh.

In a nutshell, what is being documented is the fact that fasting does impact fat mobilization during exercise and after exercise, even though blood glucose levels are not impacted in a corresponding way.

Now I see that you have budged just a tad in spite of your earlier postition...the statement that 'after two cardio sessions and severe caloric drop, there is bound to be SOME fatloss'...yes, there is, and that term SOME can be proven, specifically, to be MORE than with the same exercise without the fasting.

That is, in fact, the whole point of the first study posted--to show that the rate of fatloss is indeed directly proportional to the degree of fasting prior to exercise--and the point of the second study is to show that there is not really a correspondence between plasma glucose levels DURING exercise and fatloss--(with regard specifically to fasting)--which was the assertion that you initially challenged as being incorrect (so in that regard you were right), but as I stated early on, the results are undeniable even if the presented logic at that point was flawed.

Now why is there a homeostasis of glucose? Look again at what was found--A HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF FAT METABOLITES DURING EXERCISE IN THE FASTED GROUP--what is difficult to understand about that? And how can we say that it is aresult of glucose levels being altered when the entire study JUST PROVED THAT THEY ARE UNCHANGED DURING EXERCISE???

What could that homeostasis mean? You assert that it is evidence of muscle wasting? Are you sure that you want to make that assertion here on this board for all to see? Read it again--DECREASED UTILIZATION OF GLUCOSE IN THE MUSCLE--

Is that not evidence specifically contrary to your theory that in a fasted state muscle wasting will occur during exercise?

I suggest you reread your own words before responding to this post.

As far as steroid use being completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, well, you have me there. Strictly speaking we are not pursuing the answer to this question for a person using steroids, but in light of what I have just reiterated and clarified for you, does it not stand to reason that if one is taking steroids, one can safely engage in exercise on an empty stomach and not increase the risk of muscle loss?

Indeed, the evidence actually implies that there exists a type of muscle preserving mechanism in the event of exercise after fasting.

Maybe Mother Nature had her head on straight when she contemplated the possibility of a hunter having to chase down a meal when he was hungry...

Is that even remotely possible?

You actually said to this board that the studies posted do not support my assertions very well. OK, would you please interpret the studies in a way that supports your theory?

Or, could you now post your studies backing your claims?

Really, sir...I am starting to believe that you are simply interested in being proven right rather than learning or contributing here. After all, you have disagreed with me several times now, but have not logically supported your side of this issue. We don't even have any of your references to discuss, because you have so far contributed none.

Incidentally, the answers you posted to my questions about glucose are not only incomplete, but they are also largely incorrect.

I will help out here for the board.

1. Almost right, but your propostion that the body will burn from the source requiring the least amount of energy is not always true. Remember, fat is stored SPECIFICALLY FOR BURNING IN AN EMERGENCY STATE. The caloric release from fat is greater than that of muscle, so if the body chooses muscle over fat it more quickly depletes itself and therefore dies sooner.

You see the logic here? SURVIVAL is the central issue.

2.You gave an ambiguous reply that is not only noncommital, but noninformative as well. The answer is--NO. The body does NOT react identically to aerobic vs anaerobic exercise. The difference is in what is burned, and why, specifically how much oxygen, how much sugar, and from where they are being drawn. Those answers are determined in part by--guess what?--WHETHER OR NOT THE BODY HAS RECENTLY BEEN FED, and how much sugar there is for instant conversion to energy.

3. Almost impossible is correct. But look closely at your answer. You suggest that if one fasts for days then such and such could happen. How then can you assert that fasting has no impact on fat metabolism? You can only assert that a short fast has no significant impact, a point which can be debated, but to suggest that fasting is completely irrelevant (as suggested by your first response in this thread wherein you say it is biologically impossible to burn more fat in a fasted state) does not correlate to this answer. So it seems that you do not fully understand your own postition on this issue.

4. Absolutely dead wrong. True, the alternate sources of energy are fat and muscle, but again, the biological imperative of survival compels the body to choose fat FIRST when confronted with the choice of that or muscle. Again, examine my simple empirical proof (notwithstanding the evidence I have presented since)...muscle yields 600 calories of energy per pound burned. Fat yields 3500. Now, I have burned over 5000 calories in the gym MANY times, and in a fasted state, and for consecutive days. Why then does my bodyweight not drop according to the depletion of muscle? Even if they were both burned at the same rate (they are not, muscle is not burned at any significant rate at all in this scenario), I would still see a drop in bodyweight nearly triple what I actually see.

Explain this.

5.Wrong again. The answer is: absence of carbs AND fat. Again--the BODY BURNS MUSCLE LAST (during exercise in a fasted state)if there is any excess fat. This is why fat is stored in the first place--to be burned if needed in the absence of food.

Now look again at your own answer here. You state that the best way to burn fat is to have more muscle--true enough. Why? More biologically active, hence more heat. Higher metabolism is not entirely accurate, but it will suffice here. Anyway, how can you reconcile this truth with the notion that the body will burn muscle first? If that were the case, more muscle would simply mean the body would wait even LONGER to burn fat, because it would simply burn up that extra muscle. But we just said that more muscle burns off extra fat...

You see the conundrum here? Again, your own position is self-annihilating, and can be disregarded because it is not demonstrably possible in any given scenario, since it at once suggests that muscle is its own fuel and simultaneously its own preservation.

Nelson, my friend, it is time to rethink your postition on this issue. Even if you choose to argue the point on the board, you now know that I am in fact correct, or at least I can make a compelling case--one that you have yet to refute with any data or sound logic.

I notice that you like to utilize the term 'logic' in your posts, and I do believe that you are a student of logic (as am I), and it is because of this belief that I am very interested in your detailed reply to my points, one by one, with supporting documentation.

To those who are reading this ongoing dialogue, may I suggest that it is counterproductive to insult Mr. Montana, as it is possibly a result of these insults that leads him to so strongly cling to his assertions. There is no shame in being mistaken, and if I am mistaken here (I may well be), then please have the courtesy to point out to me where my errors are, with specificity, so that I may correct my thinking and learn, and therefore grow.




transporter:

u do cardio on empty stomach in starvation mode.
the body in starvation mode will burn muscle but not fat.

nelson is right here!



jg1:

I guess that explains my results then :rolleyes:



fukkenshredded:

Uh...wanna show me the studies to support that? Any study at all will be fine.

This whole 'starvation mode' way of thinking is suspect from the beginning.

Somewhere people bought into the idea that starving the body causes it to hold fat, and that food causes it to shed fat.

No.

Excess calories cause the body to store fat. Reduction of food causes the body to burn fat.

Eventually, the metabolism slows, yes.

Now, what I want you to show me is a study ANYWHERE that suggests that the metabolism slows down OVERNINGHT, or after a 12 hour or 24 hour fast. Just show me where the body panics after 12-24 hours and holds on to fat, especially and SPECIFICALLY DURING EXERCISE. SHOW IT TO US ALL PLEASE.

THINK about what you are suggesting.

You are suggesting that the body holds on to fat for survival.

WTF??

No, the body BURNS fat for survival. See, the body stores fat PRECISELY TO AVOID HAVING TO BURN MUSCLE WHEN FOOD IS SCARCE.

I'll be waiting and checking back for the studies supporting claims otherwise.

OK, Nelson, others...I've made the case. It's plain and simple logic that I have presented, backed up with both studies and personal experience. You have yet to refute it with anything resembling logic or fact.

ANYONE JUST LOOKING AT THIS THREAD WHO HAS NOT READ EVERY POST MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION BY LOOKING AT POST # 94 ON THIS THREAD.

And there you have it, then.

The final, accurate word on cardio on an empty stomach is:

IT IS MORE EFFECTIVE. DO IT.




NM:

You're not getting it JG1. Nobody is saying you didn't get results. They just weren't because of doing cardio in the morning on an emty stomach. I'm sure if you did cardio AFTER a small breakfast the results would have been exactly the same.

FS: A very well thought out argument. You make some good points but you're logic is flawed. You're extrapulating conclusions based on this one test that, as explained, was not conducted in a controlled manner. (See past posts for explanations.) This is something that would make for a detailed six hour seminar and I can't cut and paste every sentance so I'm going to have to sum it up -- which I'm sure will not be good enough for some peopele, but hey, NOTHING is good enough for some people.

Real quick: Why is there homeostasis of glucose? For exactly the reason you mentioned. Mother Nature is pretty shrewd. The body is designed to survive. This shows that all the claims that the body doesn't have available carbs after a 10 hour fast is dead wrong. I don't know how many more times I have to say this.

Yes, there was a higher concentration of fat metabolites among the fasted group, but, AGAIN, t was their second session! Of course, they had less fat then when they started exercising!!! You see, you're arguing a point without seeing the entire picture. That, is what logic is all about. It's like closing your eyes, grabbing an elephants tail and saying, Oh, an elephant is like a snake! This was not TWO SEPERATE GROUPS. It was the SAME group. Do you not see how that makes this flawed?

And another thing about the 12 people tested. THEY HAVEN'T EATEN IN 24 HOURS! This is a completely different argument. Not to mention they don't say how much fat was actually lost. Does it take a 24 hour fast to lost an eight of an ouce more fat? if so, you got me. Maybe that's the case. But fuck man, is that worth it? ALSO, this was a one shot deal. How many 24 hour fasts can someone endure, before catabolism takes place?

Your other points are an argument (though polite) to my response to previous staements you made. Let's make them a seperate issue because all the back and forth is getting complicated. At any rate, I believe we're just in dossagreement there. You make the argument that our survival mechanism allows us to burn fat. I say our survival mechanism is exactly why we burn muscle. Muscle requires less energy since each unit is only 4 calories whereas fat is 9 calories. Also, muscle is heavier than body fat. If the mode is survival, or more specifically, the need to keep moving, what makes more sense to drop? Something lighter or something heavier? And what makes more sense to use? Something that requires more energy or less? You see -- it's simple logic, and the body which is designed for survival can only operate in such a manner. It doesn't give a shit what you want to look at.



Hey Juice, hows that Clomid therepy working out for you?











HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!




fukkenshredded:

Nelson, my friend, fair enough.

We just simply disagree.

I can answer the question about what makes more sense to drop, muscle or fat--and your assertion that muscle is dropped first because it is lighter and burns faster.

Your position is noted, and is not entirely without merit from the standpoint of common sense.

However, the question is not 'which is lighter' or 'which burns easier', the question is, rather, 'which yields more energy'?.

Ask yourself this question:

WHat is the biological function of fat?

Answer:

To provide energy to the body in the absence of food.

What is the biological function of muscle?

Answer:

To move the body.

Now, an organism will utilize muscle for executing the chase, and fat to support the muscle with the necessary energy required that chase and other movement necessary for survival.

The fact that muscle burns faster does NOT suggest that it is burned first.

Again, my initial question still stands for anyone who can answer it...

Why do I not lose weight that corresponds to muscle loss (600 calories per pound) when I exercise?

Can you please explain that? Can anyone explain that?

Nelson, an explanation for that will suffice for me, and I will leave this thread alone after that. I cannot make my point any clearer, and I see that I have not convinced you on this issue...so be it.

I just want to understand how you account for the preservation of actual body tissue (regarless of what that tissue is) in accordance to my question.

600 calories per pound, I burn 5000 calories, and yet, I am not 8 pounds lighter.

Explain.

Peace. It is a fun debate.



NM:

FS: "Nelson, my friend, fair enough.


Your position is noted, and is not entirely without merit from the standpoint of common sense.


Ask yourself this question:

WHat is the biological function of fat?

Answer:

To provide energy to the body in the absence of food.

What is the biological function of muscle?

Answer:

To move the body.

Now, an organism will utilize muscle for executing the chase, and fat to support the muscle with the necessary energy required that chase and other movement necessary for survival."


Mmm, not quite. Fat has many functions including providing warmth and nutrients in a starvaion mode. That makes it a valuable commodity to the body, ESPECIALLY when under stress i.e aerobic type training and/or being hungry. And the muscles biological function is not entirely to move the body -- not to mention the tendons and ligiments come into play in a big way here. However, type II muscle fibers (the kind you want) are designed for short moments of exertion i.e. lifting weights or killing the prey for food.

"FS: The fact that muscle burns faster does NOT suggest that it is burned first."


This is where we have to agree to disagree.


"FS: Again, my initial question still stands for anyone who can answer it...

Why do I not lose weight that corresponds to muscle loss (600 calories per pound) when I exercise?"


Can you re-phrase that? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

"FS: Nelson, an explanation for that will suffice for me, and I will leave this thread alone after that. I cannot make my point any clearer, and I see that I have not convinced you on this issue...so be it."


Ditto.


"FS: I just want to understand how you account for the preservation of actual body tissue (regarless of what that tissue is) in accordance to my question.

600 calories per pound, I burn 5000 calories, and yet, I am not 8 pounds lighter.

Explain."


Because you have a fuel source!!!


"FS: Peace. It is a fun debate."


Yes, it was. Tiring though. But this is what it's all about. This is a classic example of somethng that members can read and have a much better understanding of the issue. Or, they can concur with the infantile rantings of JA and others. But anyone who folows a fool can only aspire to be a fool themselve.




fukkenshredded:

Well...I will ssume that you have studies and experience to support your position here and that you are just too tired to post them (including those documentations of your 'dozens of people' and their results)...

...that being said, here are a few relevant studies, I actually have thirty eight that I have read through and all of which support my postition, but anyway, here are some for anyone's perusal:


E. F. Coyle, A. R. Coggan, M. K. Hemmert, R. C. Lowe, and T. J. Walters
Substrate usage during prolonged exercise following a preexercise meal
J Appl Physiol 59: 429-433, 1985.

. L. Johnson and G. J. Bagby
Gluconeogenic pathway in liver and muscle glycogen synthesis after exercise
J Appl Physiol 64: 1591-1599, 1988. [

H. E. Koubi, D. Desplanches, C. Gabrielle, J. M. Cottet-Emard, B. Sempore, and R. J. Favier
Exercise endurance and fuel utilization: a reevaluation of the effects of fasting
J Appl Physiol 70: 1337-1343, 1991. ]

A. Bonen, S. A. Malcolm, R. D. Kilgour, K. P. MacIntyre, and A. N. Belcastro
Glucose ingestion before and during intense exercise
J Appl Physiol 50: 766-771, 1981. ]

M. T. Falduto, S. M. Czerwinski, and R. C. Hickson
Glucocorticoid-induced muscle atrophy prevention by exercise in fast-twitch fibers
J Appl Physiol 69: 1058-1062, 1990.

Pietro Galassetti, Stephnie Mann, Donna Tate, Ray A. Neill, David H. Wasserman, and Stephen N. Davis
Effect of morning exercise on counterregulatory responses to subsequent, afternoon exercise
J Appl Physiol 91: 91-99, 2001. ]

A. Robergs, D. R. Pearson, D. L. Costill, W. J. Fink, D. D. Pascoe, M. A. Benedict, C. P. Lambert, and J. J. Zachweija
Muscle glycogenolysis during differing intensities of weight-resistance exercise
J Appl Physiol 70: 1700-1706, 1991.

A. Saborido, J. Vila, F. Molano, and A. Megias
Effect of anabolic steroids on mitochondria and sarcotubular system of skeletal muscle
J Appl Physiol 70: 1038-1043, 1991.

I can only assume that Nelson has some studies to post as well, and that he actually will present some scientific data when he gets the time.



NM:

Aw, just when I thought we were all getting along, I sense a passive aggressive sarcasm in your post FS.

I said this when I first came on this board and I'll say it again. I am not going to play the "I can site more references than you can" game. First of all I can't cut and paste onto the board with my servor and secondly , if I could, I wouldn't - for two reasons. One, I'd be spending all day tracking the shot down and two, just because a reference exists doesn't mean it's right. We'd have to debate each one individually and as I've already shown man of them are flawed and I believe went beyond the call of duty here to explain in detail what was flawed and why. And then you pull this shit. Very dissapointing.



Phaeton:
"NM: I say our survival mechanism is exactly why we burn muscle. Muscle requires less energy since each unit is only 4 calories whereas fat is 9 calories. Also, muscle is heavier than body fat. If the mode is survival, or more specifically, the need to keep moving, what makes more sense to drop? Something lighter or something heavier? And what makes more sense to use? Something that requires more energy or less? You see -- it's simple logic, and the body which is designed for survival can only operate in such a manner. It doesn't give a shit what you want to look at."


That makes no sense. In order to survive we use a less efficient feul, protein, at the expense of our locomotion?

Muscle(protein) produces 4cal/g when oxidized.
Fat provides 9cal/g when oxidized.

This means that fat is a MORE EFFICIENT substrate to use than muscle.

and muscle is not heavier than fat. Wieght is constant. 1kilo of fat wieghs the same as 1 kilo of muscle wieghs the same as 1 kilo of glucose. They all whey 1 kilo. And for that 1 kilo fat produces more than twice the enrgy.

Thats why fat is the choice for energy. More bang for the buck without the expense of locomotion.

...The body operates in the manner it is told by the mind...but thats another thread.



NM:

One square inch of muscle weighs more than one square inch of fat.

Stick around a while. Read. Ask questions. Know what you're talking about before posting.



Phaeton:

I have a little knowledge in the area:)

...and thats a greater density, not wieght.



NM:

Saying something has greater density is the same as saying it weighs more jesusfuckingcrist.

This is so typical of someone who has nothing to say and no point to make -- arguing somantics:rolleyes:



fukkenshredded:

I do not know how to highlight and repost your words, but take a look at the following that you said in post #78:

"So...WHERE ARE THE STUDIES???

All I've seen so far is a bunch of cut and paste opinions. Just quoting someone else doesn't make it correct. I've been quoted too you know. It seems that some peoples inellects dont grasp this. They see a post, and their immediate reaction is; HE WINS!

Where are the studies? One guy contradicted himself by saying that training when energy levels are low is catabolic. Well, a lot of people's energy levels are low in the morning.

The NFPT said to consume a SMALL meal before training. (I agree)

And the last study (the only one) shwed that there was less catabolism when the rats were given whey protein before exercise.

WHERE ARE THE STUDIES PROVING YOUR POINT?!? "

Remember that post, Nelson?

Well, I simply gave you the studies. Now you think
I am being aggressive?

Sir, I can dessicate your argument with your own words quite easily. I have chosen to present my side without insulting you in any way shape or form.

Your answers to my questions are provably wrong, and again, you have yet to provide YOUR OWN DATA THAT YOU CLAIM YOU HAVE RECORDED, but you accuse me of being aggressive.

The reason I sound so persuasive here is because I am right.

Now, let's illustrate this point with just a couple of your answers here. You suggest that the reason that I do not lose 8lbs with a 5000 calorie expenditure is because I have a fuel source.

CORRECT.

Guess what that fuel source is if I am in a fasted state?

We have already shown that glucose levels are in a state of homeostasis, so it isn't there, and we have shown that muscle glycogen stores are preserved in a fasted state during exercise, so it isn't there either.

WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER.

Again, if it is coming from muscle, I would lose eight to ten pounds.

If it is coming from carbs, I would need full glycogen stores to account for such an expenditure, but I am fasted.

Not to mention, the body stores carbohydrates as what...you got it, FAT.

And there is where it comes from.

I am sorry that posting studies THAT YOU ASKED FOR has offended you, but it is my suspicion that your are actually embarassed more than offended.

For a published person you have preovided NOTHING in terms of documentation. NOTHING. You say my studies are flawed and irrelevant. Even if that is true, I have taken the time to post them, dissect them, and reference my claims.

Remember your whining earlier about how everyone demanded studies from you but not from anyone else? How you always document yourself, you are published, etc.? I have YET to see a single reference from you supporting your claims. I have asked politely and made reference to this omission of documentation several times.

So, in your own words...

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

I gave you mine, let's see yours.

Time to abide by your own words, friend.




Basskiller:

Nelson, You've asked a number of times for these studies that everyone has posted and this is all you can come up with? That is what is "Very dissapointing"!

You want everyone to go and get what you yourself are not willing to get, studies that support their reasonings. Well they have and now you don't feel like debating them cause your too damn lazy to look for the ones that support your claims...



juice authority:

Bass, thanks for chiming in.

Don't even waste your time going there with Nelson. He's too stupid to realize how stupid he is.



fukkenshredded:

JA--

One thing Neslon is NOT, is stupid. Mistaken, yes. Sensitive, yes.

But he is also very intelligent and I suspect that what we are witnessing here is more an issue of embarassment and fatigue more than anything else.

He has made a couple of points, they are worth examining, they are worth debating.

His refusal to post his own documentation is not evidence of stupidity, its just evidence of embarassment and frustation. Remember, he genuinely believes his position here. After he gets over the kneejerk reaction to being disproven, he will do one of two things:

Concur, with caveats,

or post something germain that documents his position.

Of course, he could always just ignore this thread from here on out and call it too purile, or beneath him, but I doubt that he will take such a silly out. He has taken time to respond, lets give him that much.

If he keeps typing he may type something relevant, so lets wait and see what happens when he gets motivated enough to prove me wrong.

In any event, I have stated before that his input is appreciated greatly, and I am edified by debates such as this because I am able to have my own theories tested.

Nelson, you have enhanced my thinking on this issue. I do want to thank you for that. I can do without the insults, but no matter.

Anyway, you have the last word. I rest my case right here.

Out, with respect.



NM:

What the fuck are you talkng about?

I addressed IN DEPTH dozens of points in this thread. Like I said, NOTHING is enough for some people.

FS: THOSE WEREN'T STUDIES!!! After all was said and done, you posted REFERENCES!!!

REFERNCES ARE NOT STUDIES!

You want documentation of the people I worked with? What do you want? Should I contact these people and ask for written documentation? Should I post all the letters I've received? The endorsements of some of the most presdigious people in the industry isn't enough? This is getting beyond childish.


NEW RULE....


I will no longer respond to any thread where Juice Authority is a participant. Yes, I know. that's exactly what he wants. But I refuse to bicker with this kid. Besides his incessant heckling he is also a flagrent liar and a liar deserves no attention.

I'd still love to contribute to the board. And if someone has a question, I'll gladly answer it. Bit if JA comes on, I won't. Simple as that. I'll let the board decide what's more important. And if they think it's JA's contributions, so be it. It saves me a lot of time.



jimwill911:

Fukkenshredded,

Do you believe that ones bodyfat level may determine the source of the fuel (fat or muscle)? For instance, a person that weighs 170lbs with 4% bodyfat has 6.8 lbs of fat. Do you think the body might choose to utilize some muscle at these low points if you do not eat prior to cardio? If not, then it would be relatively easy to reduce even further very quickly at these low levels.
Jim



fukkenshredded:

Jimwill911--

As bodyfat levels decrease muscle becomes more exposed to catabolization. This is why extremely lean people need to eat prodigously to spare muscle. It is also why lean people can eat more food per pound of bodyweight than obese people and not gain weight. So yes, there is a certain point where eating prior to exercise is prudent.

When confronted with the choice of burning food or burning muscle, again, the body will choose muscle last.

Nelson is correct when he states that the body will burn muscle in some instances, and an extremely low bodyfat coupled with a fasted state is an example that would apply.

I would recommend eating prior to exercise if you are below 6%, although I cannot recommend exact nutrient ratios. Surely one would want to include protien and exclude fats...maybe something like a power bar?

That is another thread, I am guessing.



hhajdo:

If cardio is performed in a fasted state more fat is burned...
Here's a comparison of substrate utilization when exercise is performed after a meal vs. an overnight fast:


Energy metabolism during exercise at different time intervals following a meal.

Willcutts KF, Wilcox AR, Grunewald KK.

Department of Physical Education, Dance and Leisure Studies, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506.

The objective of this study was to compare caloric expenditure and substrate utilization during exercise begun at different time intervals following a standard test meal or in the fasted state. Eight physically fit women (aged 21-27 years) participated in four separate exercise trials. In three trials, the subjects consumed a 940-kcal meal following an overnight fast and began exercising either 30, 60, or 90 min after the meal. In the other trial, the subjects did not consume any breakfast prior to exercising. Energy expenditure and substrate utilization were determined by indirect calorimetry during the last 23 min of a 30-min run on a treadmill at an average work load of 62% VO2max. There were no significant differences among trials when comparing the total caloric expenditures (range: 215-219 kcal). However, the subjects oxidized significantly more fat (94.3 kcal) when they exercised on an empty stomach than when they exercised 60 or 90 min after the meal (71.6 and 68.8 kcal, respectively) (P less than 0.05). It was concluded that consumption of a meal prior to exercise does not increase the energy cost of the activity for physically fit women, but it does disrupt the pattern of substrate utilization, reducing the contribution of fat as an energy source.

----------------------------------------------


Effect of physical exercise on glycogen turnover and net substrate utilization according to the nutritional state.

Schneiter P, Di Vetta V, Jequier E, Tappy L.

Institute of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

To determine the metabolic effects of a single bout of exercise performed after a meal or in the fasting state, nine healthy subjects were studied over two 8-h periods during which net substrate oxidation was monitored by indirect calorimetry. On one occasion, exercise was performed 90 min after ingestion of a meal labeled with [U-13C]glucose [protocol meal-exercise (M-E)]. On the second occasion, exercise was performed after an overnight fast and was followed 30 min later by ingestion of an identical meal [protocol exercise-meal (E-M)]. Energy balances were similar in both protocols, but carbohydrate balance was positive (42.2 +/- 5.1 g), and lipid balance was negative (-11.1 +/- 2.0) during E-M, whereas they were nearly even during M-E. Total glycogen synthesis was calculated as carbohydrate intake minus oxidation of exogenous 13C-labeled carbohydrate (calculated from 13CO2 production). Total glycogen synthesis was increased by 90% (from 47.6 +/- 3.8 to 90.7 +/- 5.4 g, P < 0.0001) during E-M vs. M-E. Endogenous glycogen breakdown was calculated as net carbohydrate oxidation minus oxidation of exogenous carbohydrate and was increased by 44% (from 35.8 +/- 5.6 to 51.7 +/- 6.6 g, P < 0.004) during E-M. It is concluded that exercise performed in the fasting state stimulates glycogen turnover and fat oxidation.




Protein catabolism during exercise depends on initial muscle glycogen levels, so maybe taking a whey shake before cardio like in that rat study would be optimal:


Effect of initial muscle glycogen levels on protein catabolism during exercise
P, W. R. LEMON AND J. P. MULLIN
Biodynamics Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

LEMON, P. W. R., AND J, P. MULLIN. Effect of initial muscle glycogen levels on protein catabolism during exercise.
J. Appl. Physiol.: Respirat. Environ. Exercise Physiol. 48(4): 624-629, 1980.-

Serum urea increases with exercise duration suggest prolonged exercise may be analogous to starvation where protein catabolism is known to occur. The purpose of this investigation was to alter muscle glycogen levels and to study the effect on protein catabolism. Six subjects (27-30 yr) pedaled a cycle ergometer for 1 h at 61% v02 max (mean 902 = 2.33 & 0.7 L/min)

1) after CHO loading (CHO,) and
2) after CHO depletion (CHOD).

The following urea N measures were made: pre-exercise serum and urine, exercise serum and sweat (15min serial samples), and serum and urine during 240 recovery min.
Results demonstrated that 1) exercise serum urea N increased in CHOn attaining significance (P < 0.01) at 60 min; 2) serum urea N increases continued into recovery at all measurement points of CHOD (P < 0.01) and at 240 min of CHOI, (P < 0.05);
3) sweat urea N increased X&&fold (CHOKE) and 65.6-fold (CHUL) (P < 0.05). Calculations indicate that CHOr:, sweat urea N excretion was equivalent to a protein breakdown of 13.7 g per hour or 10.4% of the total caloric cost.
It was concluded that protein is utilized during exercise to a greater extent than is generally assumed and that under certain conditions protein carbon may contribute significantly to exercise caloric cost.



NM:

I'm familiar with the study hjdo posted. It too was not conducted in an biased fashion. I'd elaborate, but true to my word, I'll will not debate in any forum where JA is allowed to participate. For more info, either PM me or start a new thread. My apologies to the members for the inconvenience.



jboldman:

"NM: Okay, let's put the effectiveness or non effectiveness of cardio aside for a moment:

Doing ANY exercise on an empty stomach will not burn more fat. It is biologically impossible.

If you don't mind it, fine.

If you like it, fine.

But it will NOT burn more fat than if you train on a full stoach, or a half full stomach.

But it won't be the final word for a long time. Myths die hard."


I guess that all those exercise physiologists that conducted all those experiments that found that exercise in a fasted state preferentially burns fat as a substrate must be wrong. Man, i try, i really try nelson but when you come out and make statements that are JUST PLAIN WRONG it really goes to your dredibility. Much of what you say i agree with but making statements like that really go to your credibility overall. It does not make any difference how many professional bbrs like you or how many ebooks you have written or how many articles you have writtne, i just wonder if if yourealize how foolish it makes youlook when you state something that is so patently false.

jb




NM:

Jboldman, So you agree with much of what I say but I'm just plain wrong? Hmmm.

Bro, you're falling into the same trap as so many people of these boards. They think of themselves as progessive thinkers yet they only see what they want to see. A reference is not a study and a study is not proof.

Only two actual studies were provided on this thread and both were flawed in the way they were conducted yet some people refuse to recognize or even acknowledge that fact.

Another point that everyone is too busy beating themselves on the chest to see is the COMPARISON over the long term between two groups of people -- one who exercised on a regular basis on an empty stomach, and another who did an equal amount of exercise with an equal caloric intake yet did so after a small meal. I say whatever difference there may be is negligable. I've offered what I belive to be insight and reason to that belief and have not seen a shread of evidence to contradict it -- only a bunch of cut and paste speculations and two studies conducted once on a few people who fasted for over 24 hours. You see what I'm saying here?

But hey, JA says case closed and that appears to be good enough for everyone. Change the word "case" to "minds" and the statement is pretty accurate.

At any rate, I'm not going to debate any specifics because as mentioned, JA will just shit all over it for no other reason other than that's what he does. And curiously, people are okay with it. Interesting.



jboldman:

The hell with ja, i am not ja. How many studies do you want before you believe me? Actually there very well might be a middle ground here. I among others now eat a small protein only(i suppose you could add fat that seems counterproductive) meal about 30-60 min's before cardio after reading a study that showed not only increased fat burning but also muscle increase after cardio. I will sttae that it i was a rat study and it was done using a particular blend of protein(alpha-lactoalbumin) which as you know is a constituent of whey but not as high as the study used. I have in fact obtained some ala protein and mixed it up in the recommended proportion and now use it prior to my cardio in an otherwise fasted state. It "seems" to work better but that is just anecdotal.

So perhaps we can seek a middle ground based on studies and common sense(it does seem to make sense that adding some protein prior to exercise would be beneficial adding to the amino acid pool in the body.

I would be glad to post the study if you are interested.

jb
btw, i appreciate the tone of your response, i never have any problem agreeing to disagree.



NM:

You'd be glad to post a study that suggests ingesting whey improved permormance and increased fat loss? Dude, if you do that you're agreeing with me. Sometimes I wonder if people even know what they're arguing or if they're more interested in just being a part of a mob.

It's funny. One week, I'm a genius. The next week, I'm a bum. I'm neither. But that's the way a mob thinks. And make no mistake about it. All it takes is one person to to yell "WITCH" and the next thing you know, someone's starting a fire.

Hell, even JA has praised me, then dissed me, then praised me, then dissed me. It all depends on the trend of the moment. But truth and logic know no trends. They are what they are. Some will see that. Others never will.




jboldman:

you are incredible! Perhaps being a writer makes taking literary license second nature to you. I am NOT agreeing with you, it does not take a rocket scientist to see the difference between eating a full meal of say 30/30/40 and then exercising as opposed to , say, taking a scoop of protein powder that has been blended to increase the ala protein fraction that results in muscle growth and improved fat loss in "rats". We are talking very low to no carbohydrates here and we are talking rats. I was leaving to door open to a specific area of research as opposed to your blanket generalizations which have been proven over and over again to be false. Listen carefully, saying that low to moderate intensity exercise while in a fasted state preferentially utilizes fat as an energy substrate! OK, Still listening, "if a protein meal containing an increased alpha lactalbumin fraction is ingested 30-60 minutes prior to exercising, the fat substrate utilised is increased and skeletal muscle mass is improved in a rat study. Two different things, not contradictory at all, the rats are still burning fat preferentially.

Oh, i do not believe that i mentioned performance at all. By the way when did anyone think you were a genius? There are some very bright folks on this board but what i see here hardly qualifies you for the genius title, i am thinking this is the ego breaking thru again.

jb

It is really tiring trying to reason logically with you, your ego is so big that logical reasoning seems to be impared.

I guess that brings us back to the conclusion that you are either logically impaired or very astute in your marketing of yourself getting all this free publicity.



plornive: "Here is one way to look at it that should be addressed. It is Lyle McDonald's opinion."


Wannabebig: Straying from nutrition for a moment and its effects on fat loss let’s look at the physical aspect of fat loss. What's your take on doing any type of morning 'cardio' on an empty stomach or performing some sort of resistance training? I believe it was Bill Phillips who revolutionized this method and it's always been a topic that's sure to spark up a good debate.

Lyle M: Oh, this should be fun, piss some readers off. For the most part (with one or two exceptions), I don't think it matters. What Phillips (and everyone else) is getting at is this: in the morning, there is a high concentration of free fatty acids in your bloodstream, because of the overnight fast, low insulin, blah, blah, blah.

Now, we've known for years that, in general, the body will burn whatever fuel is most available. Studies reliably show that when you ramp up fatty acid availability to the muscle, the muscle burns more fat.

So the logic goes: do cardio in the morning, when there are lots of fatty acids available and you will burn more fat and thus lose more fat.

Wannabebig: Seems like a reasonable concept.

Lyle M: And the logic is 100% sound right up until the last part of it "...thus lose more fat." A fundamental mistake that's been held by researchers, physiologists, trainers and coaches for decades is that 'burning fat during activity = fat loss'. You find the same argument in the 'do low intensity activity because you burn a greater percentage of fat' folks; they logic that burning more fat during activity = more fat loss.

The problem (well, there are many problems) is that they are focusing only on what's happening during the exercise bout. That is, they are worried only about what's being burned during the 30 minutes of activity. That's problem #1: what about the other 23.5 hours of the day? Most (but not all) studies have shown that, when you look at total fat use over 24 hours in response to activity, the body will figure it out. For example, if you burn more fat during exercise, you tend to burn less fat the rest of the day; if you burn more glycogen during exercise, you burn more fat the rest of the day. Over 24 hours, it balances. At least two studies have shown (and note that this wasn't in bodybuilders or lean folks) that as long as the calorie burn during activity is the same, fat loss is the same. They had folks exercise at either a low or high intensity for something like 70 or 35 minutes (calorie burn was identical in either case). Fat loss was the same over the course of the study.

Wannabebig: But what about the other side to this?

Lyle M: Now hold on, some studies actually support the opposite. Studies on interval training have shown greater fat loss with the intervals, even though fewer calories (and far less fat) are being burned. What's the reason? There are a few reasons actually. The first is that there is a period after exercise where your body continued to burn calories. Researchers usually call this excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (or EPOC). The EPOC after low-intensity fat burning activity is tiny. You may burn a few calories afterwards and that's it. So what you burn during the activity is pretty much it. After high intensity exercise (even though you're burning mainly glycogen and very little fat), you get a much larger EPOC. In addition, most of those calories come from fat stores. Bill's brother Shawn had been on the intervals for fat loss crusade for a few years now.

Empirically, you can also ask yourself who are the leanest athletes. Usually, it's sprinters (bodybuilders come in a close second). These guys rarely run more than 20-30 seconds, they are never in their fat burning zone. By the logic that you must 'burn fat to lose fat', these guys should be fat. They're not because what really matters is how many calories you're burning during the day (and if there is a deficit). And that's just problem #1.

Another problem is that, you actually end up releasing far more fatty acids in the morning than your body can burn in the first place. That is, beyond a certain point, having more fatty acids in the bloodstream doesn't increase fatty acid burning, because the limitation is now in how fast the muscle can actually burn them up. Fatty acid availability isn't the problem under most circumstances.

If I wanted to be a real jackass, I could even make an argument against morning cardio on the following argument: intensity. As above, fat loss is related to calorie burn; calorie burn is going to be related to intensity (or duration). First thing in the morning, with lowered blood glucose and no food, it's hard for most people to do their cardio at a very high intensity. So their calorie burn is going to be low. I mean go into any gym, the morning cardio folks are usually plodding along, they may be burning a whopping five cal/minute.

Wannabebig: That's an understatement.

Lyle M: So over 30 minutes that's a whole 150 calories. Yippee. Intervals first thing in the morning on an empty stomach (what Shawn Phillips recommends) are even harder. You're going in with lowered blood glucose and you're going to try to do a max workout? Good luck.

Now, before I move on to one of the exceptions to all of the above, lemme say this: except for my slightly weird anti-morning cardio argument, I don't think it's going to *hurt* anything to do cardio first thing in the morning. I'm not convinced it's going to *help* or enhance fat loss, but it's not going to hurt. I suspect that much of the reason that morning cardio 'works', is the same reason other things work: it develops a psychological pattern. Again, as much as most people don't want to believe it, most things work for psychological as much as physiological reasons. That's certainly the case for much of CKD/Bodyopus types of diets. I believed in it, it controlled my carb cravings (by allowing them at only certain times) and I stuck to it better. Psychology.



NM:

JA, Just as I thought. As soon as you're proven a liar, suddenly you want to change the subject. Everyone knows you ruined this thread, and to those who don't , there's nothing I can, or care to say.

And by the way -- an apology isn't something that you give when it suits you for the moment and you can change whenever the whim hits you. Some day when you grow up you'll realize that.

I'm done too.



juice authority:

Nelson, WTF are you talking about?? Proven liar?? God, your antics get old. If you read back through this thread you'll find some of the content I contributed set the stage for the discussion that ensued. You just can't handle being proven wrong as you've been not only by myself but by FS, poantrex, RADAR, riptorn, v shape, JG1, satchboogie, flexed1, sk*, T Bone, Phaeton, hhajdo, basskiller and now jboldman. Not to mention a whole slew of other people over at Anabolic Fitness:

Fonz...I wonder if you'd read this... - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://anabolicfitness.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=702093973&f=312093973&m=9593076827)

The relevant parts of the cardio debate... - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://anabolicfitness.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=702093973&f=312093973&m=6053048827)

That's a lot of people Nelson. I haven't seen too many supporters of your position on this thread at all. Two people at tops (Transporter and someone else), both of which had very little to offer in the way of evidence other than to parrot what you said. If people buy your book after reading through this thread they need to have their head examined!!!

[MR. BMJ]

btw....in that last response by JA, those links are great reads to the old AF board with some outstanding info in them. Very good reading:)

BMJ
:bmj:

[The Godfather]

Awesome post BJ, thanks for the flashback. Man do I hate N. Montana.....

[mnk]

BMJ.......Started reading your thread last nite at 8:45, had 6 meals, 2 trips to starbucks, 5 trips to the bathroom. Its 4:00 PM day2 and I just finished it!

Just fucking with you ....good post thanks for the read!

[Blut Wump]

I'm saving this for my next flight.

[JG1]

wow :)

[nychris]

Are there cliff notes for this? How about a short summary?

[Blut Wump]

One flew over the cuckoo's nest. That got silly towards the end.

Thanks for the post-compilation. Some interesting studies cited.

[ItlnStln]

Good read, but WOW(long)

[methyl mike]

Took 20 minutes to read but very informative. I used to know all this, shame I chose partying over staying on course...Anyway thanks very very much for the repost Bmj! If you could only get FS to post on here again you would be on my christmas list :)

Also one thing so basically I should be doing 30 minutes of cardio in the morning in a fasted state, any longer is catabolic?

If I restrict my cardio to this time frame of what intensity should I keep? Is walking alright, or should i jog or sprint?

Drinking a protein shake right before I do the cardio would be a good or bad idea?

[proteinfiend]

Ill add one thing that sometimes people over look:

High intensity cardio on an empty stomach while off cycle WILL burn muscle, and lots of it.

[MR. BMJ]

The important thing, imo, is that anytime is a good time for cardio. If you can do it in the morning, then do it, but if not, just do it at some point during the day.

Yeah, that thread was like 17 pages long, so there was a lot of 'weeding-out' of bickering....although some of it was funny.

Those links to the old AF board with retropump and Mr. Nobody and Fonz et al are very informative as well, actually probably more informative because it takes off where the other EF thread kind of drifted away from.

Damn, I wish retropump was still around:(

BMJ
:bmj:

[PDOGGY]

I will say this.

I've been living the fasted life for about 15 years now.

I fast while on and off cycle, and I do cardio in the mornings on an empty stomach while fasting.. even for 14-40 day fasts, and the amount of muscle I have lost is negligible.

Low blood sugar and ketones in the blood = mega fat loss. Period.

The way to avoid the catabolism that is ASSUMED to occur with severe caloric restriction is to LIFT WEIGHTS.

If you're going to do cardio on an empty stomach, then be sure to get in a weight training session that day.

I have absolutely no references or studies about that, but 15+ years of it actually working for me.. even before ALA, and then Glucorell.

When I'm fasting and just do cardio and no weights, I get lean/ripped, and definitely get skinnier.. but when I continue doing HST (Hypertrophy Specific Training) it's amazing the difference. Sure people tell me I look great either way, but I look and feel waay better when I'm still fasting and lifting.

[proteinfiend]

The way to avoid the catabolism that is ASSUMED to occur with severe caloric restriction is to LIFT WEIGHTS.


Its not assumed to occur, it just DOES occur.

Lifting weights is also catabolic, you need calories and carbs to replenish yourself and stop catabolism.

Lastly, it depends on genetics and gear. It will most likely work better if youre on something.

[solidspine]

What a bunch of ass holes, Nelson has to always have the last word, no matter how petty,

Plus he does not know with 7 billion people on the planet some of us are different than others.

Cardio on an empty stomach burns fat better for me, cardio before my workout works better for me._ so what,
It may be just the opposite for you, so try it both ways,


The important thing is doing it, and pushing your self, not anything Nelson Wyoming has to say about it. I obviously did not read the whole thread but I am certain he was trying to push some rose colored sand, as a supplement too.

[solidspine]

Burn muscle, how do you do that?


So you do 45 minutes of cardio every day, serious cardio, and you sweat your ass off.

With a clean diet, decent intelligent cycle, you will drop 6-7 lbs of fat for every 3-4 lbs of muscle you lose. Who cares, dropping the fat is the objective.

It is like arguing how to do cardio and stop your hair from growing, Nelson has a product for that too, I am sure.

[Blut Wump]

Nelson also seemed to have a bee up his Montana regarding the relationship between density and weight. I guess it didn't occur to him that the greater density of muscle over fat might mean that it is harder for the body to break it down for fuel than it is to metabolize fat. Fat is there as our fuel store. Why should anyone imagine that the body would prefer to destroy the ultra-expensive muscle it spent an age building in preference to the easily re-built fat store?

The "survival" argument is often run out as an indication that muscle is surplus to requirements. Your lifting serves to persuade the body that muscle is most definitely not surplus to requirements. It also takes more than a late meal for the body to go into famine-mode and start conserving its fuel reserves.

His appreciation of biology is a striking example of the need to do some basic research.

[Ulter]

It's stupidity like that from Nelson that finally became his undoing on Elite. It's sad that Rick begged him to come back simply because he had driven all the intellectuals from the board and needed a "persona" to answer questions. Wrong or right.
Now members are spoon fed Nelson's garbage with a shovel.

One of the things you don't get to see there is when Nelson completely ran out of arguments and posted that he would no longer consider research or studies. That his experiences and his anecdotal evidence, that no one could see, was more reliable than clinical research.

[Blut Wump]

Ah, the old, ever-reliable argument of, "I'm right and that's all you need to know. Next topic!".

[bigfrankie]

what about doing cardio last thing at night before you go to bed?

[TheSuaveOne]

I have to have some warm down time. If I do cardio at night, I need a few hours before I can even think about falling asleep.

[Ulter]

I have to have some warm down time. If I do cardio at night, I need a few hours before I can even think about falling asleep.

Me too. I'll be up for hours if I do night time cardio. I can't do night cardio and I can't weight train right out of bed in the morning.

[MR. BMJ]

Yeah, that is one benefit to morning cardio, you can take boatloads of thermos before it and not have to worry about napping afterwards....plus the added thermogenic effect enhances things that otherwise would not be possible at night. Although, that said, I really like doing cardio at night, for some reason it works very well for me.

I just feel.....more alive and awake for the entire day after morning cardio.

BMJ
:bmj:

[BigJimCalhoun]

Are there cliff notes for this? How about a short summary?
I am a little slower than most - did I miss the cliff notes?:dunno:

Morning cardio on empty stomach yes or no?
Low intensity or high intensity?

Thank you

[Ulter]

Yes

[rdel85]

high or low intensity?

[Ulter]

It depends on your goals.

[booey]

Didn't have time to read through it yet, but I will say this: when ON GEAR, do 45 minutes to an hour AM empty stomach cardio @ low intensity (I prefer a quick walk on an incline) and the fat will come off. Diet is obviously very important and so is carb manipulation (no carbs for 2-4 hours after cardio session). A little T3 and you're good to go.

Now, doing it natty is a different ballgame, assuming muscle preservation is top priority. In that case, I'd focus more on diet and do cardio sometime during the day/night if necessary.

[Hidngod]

I really admire FSs restraint.

[MR. BMJ]

Myths Under The Microscope Part 1: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone


By Alan Aragon © 2006




The “Fat Burning Zone” On Trial

Origin of the myth

Dietary variables aside, the body’s proportional use of fat for fuel during exercise is dependent upon training intensity. The lower the intensity, the greater the proportion of stored fat is used for fuel. The higher the intensity, the greater proportional use of glycogen and/or the phosphagen system. But this is where the misunderstanding begins. Although I’m burning a greater proportion of stored fat typing this sentence, getting up and sprinting would have a greater impact on fat reduction despite its lesser proportional use of fat to power the increased intensity. Alas, sufficient investigation of the intensity threshold of maximal net fat oxidation has been done. In what’s perhaps the best designed trial of its kind, Achten & Jeukendrup found peak fat oxidation to occur during exercise at 63% VO2 max. This peak level got progressively less beyond that point, and was minimal at 82% VO2 max, near the lactate threshold of 87% [1].

Misunderstanding is perpetuated in fitness circles

It has been widely misconstrued that a greater net amount of fat is burned through lower to moderate intensity work, regardless of study duration and endpoints assessed. In addition the confusion of net fat oxidation with proportional fat oxidation, the postexercise period is critically overlooked. No distinction is ever made between during-exercise fat oxidation, recovery period fat oxidation, total fat oxidation by the end of a 24-hr period, and most importantly, a longer term of several weeks.. Thus, the superiority of lower intensity cardio continues to be touted over the more rigorous stuff that takes half the time to do. Fortunately, we have enough research data to gain a clear understanding. Let’s dig in.


Dissecting The Research

Mixed study protocols + mixed results = plenty of mixed-up trainees

As with all research involving applied physiology, the highly mixed set of results is due to a wide variation of study designs in terms subject profile, dietary manipulation, energetic balance, and actual intensities used. Nevertheless, the body of exercise-induced fat oxidation research can be easily deciphered by stratifying it into 3 subgroups: Acute effect (during exercise & immediately after), 24-hr effect, & chronic effect (results over several weeks).

Acute effects spawn ideas for further research

In addition to measuring fat oxidation during exercise, most acute effect trials look at fat oxidation at the 3 to 6 hr mark postexercise [2]. Fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments. For example, Phelain’s team compared fat oxidation in at 3hrs postexercise of 75% VO2 max versus the same kcals burned at 50% [3]. Fat oxidation was insignificantly higher during exercise for the 50% group, but was significantly higher for the 75% group 3 hours postexercise. Lee’s team compared, in college males, the thermogenic and lipolytic effects of exercise pre-fueled with milk + glucose on high versus low-intensity training [4]. Predictably, pre-exercise intake of the milk/glucose solution increased excess postexercise oxygen consumption (EPOC, aka residual thermogenesis) significantly more than the fasted control group in both cases. The high-intensity treatment had more fat oxidation during the recovery period than the low intensity treatment. This implicates pre-fueled high-intensity training’s potential role in optimizing fat reduction while simultaneously setting the stage for quicker recovery.

24-hr effects come closer to reality

You can call it Murphy’s Law, but the promise of greater fat oxidation seen during and in the early postexercise periods of lower intensity cardio disappears when the effects are measured over 24 hours. Melanson’s research team was perhaps the first to break the redundancy of studies that only compared effects within a few hours postexercise [5]. In a design involving an even mix of lean, healthy men & women aged 20-45, identical caloric expenditures of 40% VO2 max was compared with 70% VO2 max. Result? No difference in net fat oxidation between the low & high-intensity groups at the 24 hr mark.

Saris & Schrauwen conducted a similar study on obese males using a high-intensity interval protocol versus a low-intensity linear one [6]. There was no difference in fat oxidation between high & low intensity treatments at 24 hrs. In addition, the high-intensity group actually maintained a lower respiratory quotient in postexercise. This means that their fat oxidation was higher than the low-intensity group the rest of the day following the training bout, thus the evening out the end results at 24 hrs.

Chronic effects come even closer

Long-term/Chronic effect studies are the true tests of whatever hints and clues we might get from acute studies. The results of trials carried out over several weeks have obvious validity advantages over shorter ones. They also afford the opportunity to measure changes in body composition, versus mere substrate use proximal to exercise. The common thread running through these trials is that when caloric expenditure during exercise is matched, negligible fat loss differences are seen. The fact relevant to bodybuilding is that high-intensity groups either gain or maintain LBM, whereas the low-intensity groups tend to lose lean mass, hence the high intensity groups experience less net losses in weight [7-9].

The body of research strongly favors high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for both fat loss and lean mass gain/maintenance, even across a broad range of study populations [9-12]. A memorable example of this is work by Tremblay’s team, observing the effect of 20 weeks of HIIT versus endurance training (ET) on young adults [9]. When energy expenditure between groups was corrected, HIIT group showed a whopping 9 times the fat loss as the ET group. In the HIIT group, biopsies showed an increase of glycolytic enzymes, as well as an increase of 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) activity, a marker of fat oxidation. Researchers concluded that the metabolic adaptations in muscle in response to HIIT favor the process of fat oxidation. The mechanisms for these results are still under investigation, but they’re centered around residual thermic and lipolytic effects mediated by enzymatic, morphologic, and beta-adrenergic adaptations in muscle. Linear/steady state comparisons of the 2 types tends to find no difference, except for better cardiovascular fitness gains in the high-intensity groups [13].

Summing Up the Research Findings

• In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments.
• Fed subjects consistently experience a greater thermic effect postexercise in both intensity ranges.
• In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.
• In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat.





References

Achten J, Jeukendrup AE. Relation between plasma lactate concentration and fat oxidation rates over a wide range of exercise intensities. Int J Sports Med. 2004 Jan;25(1):32-7.

Thompson DL, et al. Substrate use during and following moderate- and low-intensity exercise: implications for weight control. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998 Jun;78(1):43-9.

Phelain JF, et al. Postexercise energy expenditure and substrate oxidation in young women resulting from exercise bouts of different intensity.J Am Coll Nutr. 1997 Apr;16(2):140-6.

Lee YS. Et al. The effects of various intensities and durations of exercise with and without glucose in milk ingestion on postexercise oxygen consumption. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1999 Dec;39(4):341-7.

Melanson EL, et al. Effect of exercise intensity on 24-h energy expenditure and nutrient oxidation. J Appl Physiol. 2002 Mar;92(3):1045-52.

Saris WH, Schrauwen P. Substrate oxidation differences between high- and low-intensity exercise are compensated over 24 hours in obese men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. June; 28 (6): 759-65.

Grediagin A, et al. Exercise intensity does not effect body composition change in untrained, moderately overfat women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Jun;95(6):661-5.

Mougios V, et al. Does the intensity of an exercise programme modulate body composition changes? Int J Sports Med. 2006 Mar;27(3):178-81.

Okura T, et al. Effects of exercise intensity on physical fitness and risk factors for coronary heart disease. Obes Res. 2003 Sep;11(9):1131-9.

Tremblay, et al. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8.

Yoshioka M, et al. Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):332-9.

Broeder CE, et al. The effects of either high-intensity resistance or endurance training on resting metabolic rate. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Apr;55(4):802-10.

Gutin B, et al. Effects of exercise intensity on cardiovascular fitness, total body composition, and visceral adiposity of obese adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 May;75(5):818-26.

[MR. BMJ]

Myths Under The Microscope Part 2: False Hopes for Fasted Cardio


By Alan Aragon © 2006



False Hopes

The bandwagon is lead by blind horses

Many trainees pigeonhole weight training as an activity exclusively for building muscle, and cardio exclusively for burning fat. On the contrary, weight training can yield very similar results to cardio of similar intensity when 24-hr energy expenditure and macronutrient oxidation is measured [1]. The obvious advantage of weight training is the higher potential for lean mass and strength gains. In the bodybuilding context, cardio should be viewed as merely an adjunctive training mode to further energy expenditure and cross-complement the adaptations specific to weight training. As far as cardio being absolutely necessary for cardiovascular health, well, that depends upon the overall volume and magnitude of your weight training - another topic for another time.

Chaos theory strikes again

On the surface, it seems logical to separate carbs from cardio if you want a maximal degree of fat oxidation to occur during training. But, there’s the underlying mistake - focusing on stored fuel usage during training instead of focusing on optimally partitioning exogenous fuel for maximal lipolytic effect around the clock. Put another way, it’s a better objective to coincide your carb intake with your day’s thermic peaks, where insulin sensitivity & lean tissue reception to carbs is highest. For some reason, this logic is not easily accepted, nor understood. As we know, human physiology doesn’t always cooperate with logic or popular opinion, so let’s scrutinize the science behind the claims.

Let The Research Speak

Carbohydrate ingestion during low-intensity exercise reduces fat oxidation

As far as 3 decades back, Ahlborg’s team observed that carb ingestion during low-intensity exercise (25-45% VO2 max) reduced fat oxidation compared to fasted levels [2]. More recently, De Glisezinski’s team observed similar results in trained men at 50% VO2 max [3]. Efforts to determine the mechanism behind this phenomenon have been made. Coyle’s team observed that at 50% VO2 max, carbohydrate availability can directly regulate fat oxidation by coordinating hyperinsulinemia to inhibit long-chain fatty acid transport into mitochondria [4].

Carbohydrate’s effect on fat oxidation during moderate-intensity exercise depends on conditioning level

Civitarese’s team found glucose ingestion during exercise to blunt lipolysis via decreasing the gene expression involved in fat oxidation in untrained men [5]. Wallis’ team saw suppressed fat oxidation in moderately trained men & women when glucose was ingested during exercise [6].

In contrast to the above trials on beginning and intermediate trainees, Coyle’s team repeatedly showed that carb ingestion during moderate-intensity (65-75% VO2 max) does not reduce fat oxidation during the first 120 min of exercise in trained men [7,8]. Interestingly, the intensity margin proximal to where fat oxidation is highest was unaffected by carb ingestion, and remained so for the first 2 hours of exercise.

Horowitz’ team examined the effect of a during-training solution of high-glycemic carbs on moderately trained men undergoing either low intensity exercise (25% VO2 max) or high-moderate intensity (68% VO2 max) [9]. Similar results to Coyle’s work were seen. Subjects completed a 2-hr cycling bout, and ingested the carb solution at 30, 60, and 90 minutes in. In the low-intensity treatment, fat oxidation was not reduced below fasted-state control group’s levels until 80-90 min of exercise. In the 68% group, no difference in fat oxidation was seen whether subjects were fasted or fed throughout the trial.

Further supporting the evidence in favor of fed cardio in trained men, Febbraio’s team investigated the effects of carb ingestion pre & during training in easily one of the best-designed trials on this topic [10]. Subjects exercised for 2 hrs at an intensity level of 63% VO2 max, which is now known as the point of maximal fat oxidation during exercise. Result? Pre & during-training carbs increased performance - and there was no difference in total fat oxidation between the fasted and fed subjects. Despite the elevated insulin levels in the carb-fueled groups, there was no difference in fat availability or fat utilization.



Summing Up the Research Findings

• At low intensities (25-50% VO2 max), carbs during exercise reduce fat oxidation compared to fasted trainees.
• At moderate intensities (63-68% VO2 max) carbs during exercise may reduce fat oxidation in untrained subjects, but do not reduce fat oxidation in trained subjects for at least the first 80-120 minutes of exercise.
• Carbohydrate during exercise spares liver glycogen, which is among the most critical factors for anticatabolism during hypocaloric & other conditions of metabolic stress. This protective hepatic effect is absent in fasted cardio.
• At the established intensity level of peak fat oxidation (~63% VO2 max), carbohydrate increases performance without any suppression of fat oxidation in trained subjects.





References

Melanson EL, et al. Resistance and aerobic exercise have similar effects on 24-h nutrient oxidation.. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Nov;34(11):1793-800.

Ahlborg, G., and P. Felig. Influence of glucose ingestion on fuel-hormone response during prolonged exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 1976;41:683-688.

De Glisezinski I, et al. Effect of carbohydrate ingestion on adipose tissue lipolysis during long-lasting exercise in trained men. J Appl Physiol. 1998 May;84(5):1627-32.

Coyle EF, et al. Fatty acid oxidation is directly regulated by carbohydrate metabolism during exercise. Am J Physiol. 1997 Aug;273(2 Pt 1):E268-75.

Civitarese AE, et al. Glucose ingestion during exercise blunts exercise-induced gene expression of skeletal muscle fat oxidative genes. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Dec;289(6):E1023-9.

Wallis GA, et al. Metabolic response to carbohydrate ingestion during exercise in males and females. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Apr;290(4):E708-15.

Coyle, et al. Muscle glycogen utilization during prolonged strenuous exercise when fed carbohydrate. J. Appl. Physiol. 1986;6:165-172.

Coyle, et al.. Carbohydrates during prolonged strenuous exercise can delay fatigue. J. Appl. Physiol. 59: 429-433, 1983.

Horowitz JF, et al. Substrate metabolism when subjects are fed carbohydrate during exercise. Am J Physiol. 1999 May;276(5 Pt 1):E828-35.

Febbraio MA, et al. Effects of carbohydrate ingestion before and during exercise on glucose kinetics and exercise performance. J Appl Physiol. 2000 Dec;89(6):2220-6.
__________________
"No researcher has made a human bigger than a dumb-shit bodybuilder."---Dan Duchaine (12/18/97)

[MR. BMJ]

Myths Under The Microscope Part 3: Fat Burning Zone & Fasted Cardio Discussion & Afterthoughts

By Alan Aragon © 2006



Not an "Either-Or" Issue


The current facts have been presented in parts 1 & 2, and the bases for conclusion should be self-evident. Let me clarify that HIIT and linear high-intensity cardio are not the best and only ways to go. Many folks have perfectly legitimate orthopedic, cardiac, and even psychological reasons to avoid them. Not only that, I sincerely believe that both low and high-intensity cardio have unique benefits unto themselves. Optimally, both types should be done, since each has specifically different effects. Saying that one is bottom-line superior to the other for improvement in body composition is as false as blanketly saying 5 reps per set is superior to 15. On the contrary, there is well-established benefit in periodizing training variables, or as they say in the trenches, “mixing it up”.



Too Much of the Same?

I’ve heard it mentioned that high-intensity cardio shouldn’t be done concurrently with high-intensity weight training due to excessive stress on the central nervous system. Perfect excuse. My primary response is, there’s no solid proof of that danger. Certainly there’s no evidence of it in my observations as a professional in the field, working with bodybuilders, and all types of other competitive athletes such as gymnasts, sprinters, boxers, etc (you know, athletes whose incredible physiques have nothing to do with weights + high intensity cardio). It’s true that some folks regard a precociously low carb intake as a legit reason to keep intensity low. However, if your nutritional program doesn’t adequately support productive training, then you’ve designed it ass-backwards, painting yourself into a corner of compromised adaptation.



The Options




Options can be broken down in the following ways: If you're pressed for time, and you can do HIIT without any delayed onset muscle soreness overlap (by virtue of doing a low frequency of HIIT), and you can tolerate it joint-wise & heart-wise, and you hate spending time doing cardio to begin with, then do HIIT. On the other hand, if you have the time to allot for low-intensity steady state (LISS), and you do a particularly high volume & magnitude of resistance training which raises potential recovery conflicts posed by a high frequency of HIIT, then do LISS. If you're somewhere in between the aforementioned 2 camps and you don't have a specific preference or tolerance limit, do both types on either a cyclical, rotational, or even combined basis. Also, it can't be overstated that unless you undergo a very gradual progression towards the musculoskeletal tolerance for something like sprinting, you can get hurt pretty bad & there goes your productive training for several weeks.



Fasted = Suboptimal

Fasted cardio is not optimal for reasons spanning beyond its questionable track record in research. There’s unavoidable positive metabolic synergy in fed (read: properly fueled) training, regardless of sport. This effect increases with intensity of training; even in untrained subjects, whatever fat oxidation is suppressed during training is compensated for in the recovery period by multiple mechanisms, many of which are not yet identified.

Athletes are known for their gravitation towards self-sacrifice, but some rely on hearsay, while others rely on science. Did you know that way back in the 60’s, it wasn’t uncommon for coaches to tell athletes in various sports to avoid drinking water before and during training? No comment needed. Good thing researchers questioned it, and enough data surfaced to validate claims of the skeptics. Sometimes counterproductive dogma indeed dies, thank goodness. However, the myths addressed here are admittedly more subtle than the water example. Even on suboptimal protocols, athletes all over the world still inch along, although not at optimal rates, and not necessarily to optimal levels.



So...



I see the bottom line like this.. Do the type you have a personal preference for, and also respect your physical limits. HIIT is quicker but riskier. LISS is safer but takes twice as long to accomplish the same thing. Again, do what you prefer & can tolerate, but do NOT make the mistake of assuming that LISS burns more fat. That's misunderstanding the physiology of the matter.



I’ll end off by challenging you to diligently review the facts before blindly latching onto the myths.

[A L]

I did cardio once and I hated it. I can't remember if it was in the morning or the afternoon, but I know I remember hating it.

[Fukkenshredded]

Hehe. I remember that debate. Nelson and I had several debates about different issues. Guy was more interested in the appearance of genius than actually educating anyone. As far as the restraint issue - it so happens that there was in that very thread a quite scathing rebuttal that I posted and then deleted about a day later. It was really funny, but a bit vicious and I'm not that.

Anyway, the one issue that was not really touched on is that everybody responds slightly differently to any given routine. For me, though, am HI cardio will just melt the fat right off. I mean, I've gone from 220 (yes, I got fat) to 195 in the last TWO WEEKS, just by doing HI am cardio. I am ready to restart a weight program, after years of abstinence from lifting in the gym.

My absence here is a result of several things - one, I have a medical condition that renders me unavailable at times. Two, I was not exercising or shooting any gear for several years. I just got burned out. I mean, just burned the fuck out.

All I could say for those five years was that I was more ripped than other guys. Well, I found there are other things in life. I'm not suggesting that lifiting and shooting gear are a waste of time (I plan to get back on as soon as - well, I gotta look around - and that ain't a source request, it's just how it is), but I have discovered that muscle memory is a long-lasting phenomenon.

You guys remember when I could do fifty, sixty pull-ups? Well, that went down to FIVE over a four year period. Now, after three weeks of just barbell workouts, clean, I am back up to twelve pull-ups.

Remember when I could get 300 push ups? That went down to forty. Again, after three weeks of effort I am back up to seventy. I weigh 190-195, depending.

BUT - I grew an inch again! So now I'm six feet on the nose, maybe just a hair over. So the days of 170-175 are gone forever. I was that weight at five ten. I grew two inches from the age of 37 to now (almost 41).

So now my goal is to get back down to six percent or so. Bodyweight is immaterial to me. I'm looking to get in shape for a long-needed role this August.

I can't really sprint right now. I went to jail twice last year, and fucked up my knee inside. I can walk okay, and even run a little, but the sprints will have to wait.

Right now I'm doing farmer's walks up and down the stairs right outside my door. 35 pound dumbells is all.

Works like a charm, even clean as a whistle - no supplements, and a crappy diet.

I don't have a computer right now either - I am using a friend's at the moment - but I expect to have mine back this month.

I really miss this board. I have stayed in touch with Ulter, albeit sparsely, but the guy is a class act in more ways than one and a valued friend - no way I would let him just vanish from my life as a result of neglegence on my end.

Methyl Mike - how you keepin?

Everyone else - good to say hi to ya, and I will belong to this board as long as it exists and I am alive. BTW, anyone needing to email me can at schizoidinthevoid@cyber-rights.net.

Peace to all.

FS

[Biter]

Good to see you back FS! Your love of windsprints inspired me big time - I've added them in and I'm seeing some great results in fatloss with them. I've tried the farmer's walk but the treadmill I use can't handle the incline for some reason - it just dies at full height, lol.

[Ulter]

Ulter Prod: Like I said to you the other day on the phone, it would be nice if you would post a full log of your trip back to being fukkenshredded on the training log board. :)

[MR. BMJ]

:overhead::clap::coolred::wavey3:

[Fukkenshredded]

Ulter -

I'll do my best. It will mean sporadic posts until I regain my own comp, but I'll make sure everyone is kept informed.

I'll go ahead and tell you the end of the movie, though...

Fukkenshredded gets insanely ripped and muscular, while staying relatively thin.

HAHAHAHAHAAAAhahahaha!

It's on - I'm makin' a comeback to shreddedness. If I can get ahold of a digital camera I will post some before pics that will litetrally make you all CRINGE.

They're sad but funny at the same time. Me at six feet, 215, about 10-12% bodyfat.

See ya soon!

FS

[MR. BMJ]

Just to add to this thread....Here's Lyle McDonald's 'current' view on this matter. It will be 4 separate installments. Each one is not long at all though. Good reading.

Steady State vs. Interval Training and Fat Loss: Explaining the Disconnect. Part I

by Lyle McDonald


In the past series of posts (starting last week), I’ve been addressing some issues with respect to interval training versus steady state in terms of fat loss. In the last two posts, hopefully I’ve made the point that a lot of what the pro-interval crowd is resting the benefits of interval training on (namely EPOC, which is the post-exercise calorie burn) is a whole lot of nothing.

With any realistic amount of intervals, not only does the total calorie burn of the workout itself pale compared to longer moderate intensity steady state sessions, the EPOC simply doesn’t amount to anything. Certainly not enough to explain the rather rabid and myopic recommendation of that form of training.

Yet we seem to have something of a real-world problem, there is an apparent disconnect with the physiology that I’ve (so-far) looked at and the results of research (or the real world), many of which are showing greater fat loss with the interval versus steady state exercise mode. In the next two blog posts (this one and Friday’s), I want to look at some of those issues in some detail.

The now infamous Tremblay study

So far as I can tell, one of the first studies to compare fat loss for interval versus steady state training was done by Tremblay back in the mid-90’s. I’m actually fairly sure I was the first one to report this study, in my first book The Ketogenic Diet.

In that study, subjects either followed a fairly standard steady state cardio training program or worked into intervals (after a roughly 4 week base period) over the length of the study. The interval group lost more fat and had a larger drop in skinfolds despite burning significantly fewer calories than the steady state group and training for much less total time.

I’d note that this is where the claim of “Nine times greater fat loss” is coming from. The researchers took the difference in fat loss (three times as much drop in skinfolds) and divided by the total time investment (roughly 1/3rd as long) to get 9 times as much.

I’d also comment that my friend Tom Venuto has recently examined the Tremblay study in some detail in his blog. Parsing the numbers differently, he concluded that the steady state exercise was actually five times as effective.

Pay close attention to the changes in weight in the chart in Tom’s blog: the interval group lost a whopping 0.5 kg (1.1 lbs) over 20 weeks, the steady state group 0.1 kg (0.2 lb). Not as impressive when you look at it that way, unless you consider a 1 pound loss over 20 weeks good.

Other more recent studies, comparing various interval sessions to steady state have often found at least qualitatively similar results, at least in the context of the study (which is almost always untrained individuals who are not doing weight training and not controlling diet), intervals typically generate more fat loss.

As I discussed in last week’s research review EPOC clearly can’t explain this. What’s going on?

Muscle gain

Given that the subjects are typically beginners, it’s possible (although generally unstudied) that the intervals stimulated some muscle gains. The often low total weight loss (despite measurable fat loss) would tend to support that idea, the calories being used for muscle synthesis might add to the effective deficit.

However, what happens if you’ve got someone who is lifting weights as well? What if you have someone who is advanced, they sure as shit won’t be gaining muscle from bike intervals. So even if this is true, it will only hold for rank beginners doing nothing but interval work in the first place.

I’d note that pretty much every study of interval training points out that the intensities used are not sustainable by beginning exercisers in the first place. This has long been one of those ironies surrounding exercise; typically the only people able to burn lots of calories with exercise are trained athletes. And they usually don’t need to lose fat.

Increased fat oxidation

A follow-up study by Tremblay actually showed that the interval group saw a significant increase in the enzymes responsible for fat oxidation; surprisingly this effect happened fairly quickly. Given that obese individuals often have a defect in fat oxidation, this could be profoundly beneficial.

This effect is assuredly mediated through both effects on gene expression as well as the glycogen depletion that occurs with high intensity activities; as I’ve mentioned in all of my books glycogen depletion itself enhances full body fat oxidation. If you increase the body’s utilization of fat for the other 23 hours of the day you aren’t exercising, that’s a good thing from a fat loss perspective. Coupled with a calorie reduced/controlled diet, enhancing fatty acid oxidation during the day goes a long way towards explaining enhanced fat loss.

I’d note that steady state cardio is known to cause an increase in fat oxidizing enzymes as well although it typically takes longer than two weeks. I’d also make the same point as above, while the above certainly holds true for intervals versus steady state being done in isolation, what happens if weight training is added. Or as mentioned below, diet control is placed on the diet. If I deplete someone’s glycogen stores with a combination of full body weight training and carbohydrate restriction (as in the Ultimate Diet 2.0), I can get impressive full body increases in fat oxidation too. In about 3 days.

To be continued on Friday

Lyle

[MR. BMJ]

Steady State vs. Interval Training and Fat Loss: Explaining the Disconnect Part II

by Lyle McDonald


In Wednesday’s blog, I started to examine some other physiological explanations (outside of EPOC) to potentially explain the seeming disconnect between the total irrelevancy of EPOC and both the research and real-world fat loss results from interval training. I’m going to continue and conclude that discussion today by looking at some other mechanisms by which interval training may be affecting fat loss in both research and the real world.

The Hormonal Response

The hormonal response to any kind of high-intensity training is significantly different than in response to low-intensity training. While low intensity training typcially only releases noradrenaline (from the nerve terminals) with only small amounts of adrenaline (from the adrenal medulla), high-intensity exercise releases both adrenaline/noradrenaline in large amounts.

For various reasons, all of which are discussed in some detail in The Stubborn Fat Solution, that hormonal response can be beneficial to fat loss. Quite in fact, in that book, I use intervals for specifically that reason in two of the stubborn fat protocols.

In addition to potentially impacting on fat mobilization (lipolysis), this hormonal response can have one other major effect that is probably a major cause of the results in many of the studies being cited by the pro-interval group. That’s that high intensity exercise often blunts hunger.

Blunted hunger/appetite

If there is a single glaring flaw in nearly all of the research that is being used either in support of intervals or to tear down steady state cardio, it’s that diet is uncontrolled. This is important for two reasons, one physiological and one practical.

The practical one should be pretty damn obvious: anybody who is trying to lose fat without paying attention to their diet has it ass-backwards (for context, one of the most rabid pro-interval gurus has ‘Correct Nutrition’ as the #1 bit of importance in his Fat-loss Heirarchy). He’s assuming that diet is fixed, and then using research that is not controlling diet at all.

The other issue is a physiological one, having to do with how exercise can impact on appetite. Now, this could be an entire blog post (or series in its own right) as there are myriad physiological and psychological ways that training can impact on appetite (sometimes exercise decreases hunger, sometimes it increases it).

However, at least one data point shows rather clearly that high intensity activity tends to blunt hunger more than low-intensity activity.

Quite in fact, in one of the studies currently being used to claim that ‘Steady state cardio makes you fatter’ (the steady state group had a 0.5 kg fat gain in visceral fat compared to a 0.5 kg fat loss in the interval group), the researchers explicitly state:

“However, our estimates of energy expenditure and intake lack sufficient precision to comfortably conclude that energy balance was unaffected in the HIIE condition. Thus, it is feasible that the change in FM that occurred in HIIE may have been influenced by unreported changes in diet. Indeed, HIIE- induced suppressed diet intake may be one of a number of possible factors underlying the fat loss effect of HIIE.11 For example, HIIE may have suppressed appetite or decreased attraction for energy-dense foods.24,25.”

Meaning that the interval group may have lost fat because the exercise may have made them eat less.

While a huge benefit if someone isn’t controlling calories has no real relevance if they are. I’d also note that the total fat loss in that specific study wasn’t much, a whopping 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs) over 15 weeks. The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook can take that much fat off of a person in ONE WEEK.

Tangential question with a tone that moves beyond snarky and to outright accusation: how come the pro-interval gurus who trot out these studies don’t ever mention these specifics when they claim that intervals are superior to steady state cardio? That the intervals may have simple worked because subjects ate less, or that the actual real-world fat loss amounted to jack shit in the first place?

Simply making people work harder for a damn change

Ok, this one isn’t addressed in the research but it’s still important to results.

Let’s face facts, most people train like pussies. I don’t care how hard they claim to work, I’ve spent damn near 20 years in commecial gyms and the simple fact is that most don’t.

Go look at the average person on the treadmill, odds are they aren’t even breaking a sweat or doing anything beyond watching tv and talking on their cell phone. And while my comparison on Saturday was intervals to a moderate aerobic sessions (where I can easily burn 10 cal/min), the average person may be burning closer to 5 cal/min during ‘fat-burning’ cardio. Or 150 calories over a 30 minute pissant steady state session. Under those conditions, a 20 minute interval session (which may burn 200+ calories) actually does win out from a simple energy balance perspective, in addition to any other benefits discussed above.

If there’s one thing that the whole interval training fad has done, it’s to get people to actually work somewhat out of their comfort zone. But to a great degree, this has less to do with steady state cardio as a modality and more about how it’s used. Fine, people usually do steady state cardio at irrelevant intensities. No argument here. But that has nothing to do with steady state and more to do with the fact that people are

Being given shitty advice (fat burning zone, bro)
Lazy
So, yes, if telling them that intervals is going to MELT THE FAT OFF OF THEM actually gets them to work hard, that’s a benefit. I’d also note in this context that this can backfire. People who are too wimpy to suffer aren’t going to do intervals effectively and will probably end up getting LESS out of an interval workout (that they half-ass) than a properly done steady state cardio session (which they’ll also half-ass).

And of course none of this really gets back to the question I posed on Saturday regarding how often I can or should do intervals compared to how often I can or should do steady state. That’s the next blog post.

Lyle

[MR. BMJ]

Steady State vs. Interval Training: Getting to the Point. Part I

by Lyle McDonald


Ok, this series of blog posts seems destined to never end but I’m slowly getting there. On Friday, I looked at research on the metabolic effects of short-term, high-intensity interval training.

Summing up briefly, it showed quite clearly that, at least in relatively untrained individuals, a short-term (2-6 week) program of high-intensity interval training (workouts typically done three times per week) can generate similar adaptations to longer duration training.

In that post, I finished by asking the following question:

Summing up: There’s no doubt (and I haven’t intended to suggest otherwise) that high intensity interval training can have benefits. It’s time effective and may induce similar performance adaptations to longer duration traditional cardio. With regards endurance athletes, it’s clear that even short periods of low volume interval training can have rather large benefits for performance.

But with most of the benefits seeming to occur with only a handful of sessions per week (2-3 is the norm) and with benefits appearing to end fairly quickly (3-6 weeks), we might ask what a trainee should do when either

a. They need to train more frequently than that

b. They are looking at their training over a period longer than a few weeks. That is, if interval training stops providing benefits after 3-6 weeks, what should a trainee do for the remaining 46-49 weeks out of the year?

There is also the issue of how intervals integrate with training when OTHER TYPES OF TRAINING (e.g. weight training) are being done. That is, what happens if someone is training their legs heavily in the weight room twice/week. How realistic is it to then add high intensity interval training to that workload?

As well, what happens when someone (e.g. an athlete or obsessive exerciser) is trying to train daily? What happens then in terms of how they structure their week? If you take much of the current guru-speak (e.g. intervals are the only beneficial way to train) at face value, you end up developing a training week that no human being can survive.

And that’s where I want to start today since this will let me start to put everything together to close out this particular blog post series.

To my knowledge, pretty much every study done comparing interval training to steady state (in terms of fat loss or metabolic adaptation) has done it in isolation. The subjects were neither dieting nor doing any other form of training.

Such as weight training.

As well, the frequencies were strictly controlled in those studies. In the performance studies, typically endurance athletes replaced a small portion of their total volume (15%) with intervals. Generally 6 sessions over 3 weeks (or 2 per week) were done. In the paper I reviewed Friday, the subjects did three interval sessions per week and nothing else. Again, that’s true of most of these studies. Oh yeah, the subjects weren’t dieting, of course.

Even in the now famous Tabata study, where the subjects were doing the four minute workout four days per week (the fifth day was a partial Tabata protocol with some steady state training), that’s all they were doing. They weren’t lifting, they weren’t doing any other kind of training, just going through hell on the bike.

So why are all the gurus assuming, uncritically, that interval training can simply be ‘tacked-on’ to a heavy weight training workout without problems? Or added to a calorie restricted diet without any problems? Why are trainees assuming the same thing?

Because, in addition to the current focus on interval training as apparently the ONLY way to train or lose fat, there has been a renewed interest in full body workouts (often of the metabolic type of training with high reps and short rests). I’ll come back to that and the diet issue in more detail on Wednesday, I want to stay focused here.

So we have people who are trying to hit legs in the weight room three times per week. Sometimes its heavy, sometimes it’s metabolic stuff, sometimes it’s a combination of the two. And then add intervals to that training load. Now, if they are smart and/or lucky, they end up ONLY training three times per week. At least that way their legs are only getting hammered (and I mean totally hammered) on those three days.

And, you know…whatever. I guess if someone only has three hours to train per week and can’t fit in any more training, they might as well blow themselves out every day and just go hard. Of course, this still doesn’t address what happens when intervals stop working at the 6 week mark (as they very well might) but, again, whatever.

If you have three sessions of an hour per week and that’s all you can train, you might as well make it as time efficient as possible. Do metabolic weight room stuff for 25 minutes, intervals for 20 minutes and that leaves 15 for warmups and cooldowns. As long as the other four days per week are completely off, this might be workable. For a while anyhow.

And you know, if the various ‘HIIT plus metabolic weight training for the win’ gurus would make the above very clear, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with what’s being said. I still think it will eventually burn people out and that periodizing the type of training done will work better but that’s an argument nobody wins so I’m not going to bother with it.

I would also note that nobody can say if the adaptation benefits to HIIT continues past 6 weeks in beginners. It’s clear that it more or less stops after three weeks in trained folks (even in the much talked about Tabata study, the major benefits happened by week 3 with only small further benefits at week 6).

But recall my question from above, what happens when athletes (or dieters), want to train more than three days per week. Because they usually do. Can they simply do more and more and more intervals (or complexes or whatever)? The answer, as you might guess, is no.

And that’s where I’m seeing real problems. I’m seeing people, having been convinced by spurious logic (bordering on outright bullshit) that ONLY intervals are productive training or useful for fat loss, that magically steady state can MAKE YOU FATTER, trying to do nothing but interval training.

Added to three full body workouts per week.

While restricting both calories and carbs.

This is retarded. This is beyond retarded.

Tangent time that is sure to piss some people off: Wanna know what I think about ‘adrenal fatigue’? I think that in 99% of cases, it’s simply overtraining being brought on by people following the idiotic training advice being currently given. If these people would simply stop training in such a retarded fashion, the current fad of ‘adrenal fatigue’ would simply go away in most cases. But that’s another blog for another day.

Anyhow, recall from above that high level endurance athletes typically only add interval training twice per week, replacing some of their weekly volume. And they aren’t usually weight training. The rest of their volume, about 85% of it is low intensity aerobic work.

Keep in mind from a previous blog post that 400 meter runners (who aren’t doing true ‘interval’ training anyhow) only train maximally twice per week. The rest is extensive tempo (essentially low intensity work).

Most elite powerlifters only train legs hard twice per week (and many train heavily once per week and lighter the other), the ones who train more frequently use much lower intensities (and often take drugs to support the training). And, yes, Olympic lifters usually squat daily, but a lot of it is low intensity and they take years to build up to that level (and of course, use a lot of drugs to support that level of training).

This is fairly common, most high performance athletes don’t even try to do more than two high intensity workouts per week for the legs (I’m focusing on the legs here since most interval modes use the lower body and this is the muscle group that is most commonly overtrained).

These are highly trained athletes who are usually eating plenty to support their training.

Even contest dieting bodybuilders, who are usually trotted out as the ones to emulate for fat loss typically move to a split routine with primarily low intensity cardio for maximal fat loss. Yes, some are now incorporating interval sessions such as my stubborn fat protocols but, the majority of their training is low intensity. And that’s with a reduction in leg training frequency (one of my primary guinea pigs for the Stubborn Fat Protocol 2.0 cut his leg training back to only once per week to avoid overtraining his legs due to the intensity of the SFP2.0). And the legs often still fall apart after an endless contest diet.

Yet somehow the general public has gotten the idea that they can train legs heavy in the weight room 2-3 times/week (because full body workouts are in vogue) AND add intervals multiple times per week to that load (because ONLY interval training is productive apparently). While restricting calories and carbs. And this is being promoted in various media (books, e-books, blogs, etc) as the thing to do.

Did I mention that this was fucking retarded?

Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-intervals. Clearly they are time efficient and productive in many ways. But they are also a high intensity training session for the legs and have to be counted as such. And they have to be considered within the context of the complete program including any other types of training (whether for aesthetics or performance) and diet.

And this is what is not being done for the most part. People are simply taking isolated data points about diet or training and assuming that they can be stuck together to provide maximal results. And this is getting them into trouble.

Lyle

[MR. BMJ]

Steady State vs. Interval Training and fat loss: Getting to the Point. Part II

by Lyle McDonald


Before continuing I want to point everyone to a link that Chris Highcock of the Conditioning Research blog sent me regarding the issue of interval vs. long duration training for endurance athletes. It’s from the excellent Master’s Athlete Physiology and Performance page and has a great deal of absolutely excellent training information. You’ll note that the main thrust of that page is identical to what I’ve written in previous blog posts: the idea that high-intensity interval training can make up all or even the majority of training for athletes is utterly misguided.

***

On Monday, I started to put together some of the information I’m blogging about by making a point about the types of problems I’m seeing in practice with the pro-interval myopia. Simply: given that a majority of trainees train more frequently than 3X/week, once they have been convinced that intervals are the only way to train, problems start. They end up trying to do intervals at every session, in addition to a heavy weight training load for the legs and they blow up.

But thats’ not the only problem I’m seeing and, today, I want to take another side-trip to look at the three distinct parts of what is currently being given to trainees in terms of how they should be training.

In a recent commercial fat loss product I listened to (yes, I have to read everything, even the stuff I know will be garbage) pretty much every interviewee’s answers can be summed up as

Intervals are best for fat loss
Metabolic weight training is the best for fat loss
Low-carb diets are best for fat loss
With the standard spurious arguments given for each.

What’s going on here, why are these three things coming up again and again and what’s the problem with what’s being recommended?

Simply, the problem I see is that people are taking a number of isolated data points (e.g. individual studies looking at only one thing) and assuming that, if they put all of those concepts together, thing will work even better. This is even assuming that the study results in question are actually saying what people say they are saying. Let me look at that quickly first.

For example, the superiority of intervals is usually based on the supposed afterburn/EPOC, an idea that I have summarily explained is irrelevant. And even looking at the (non-diet controlled) studies comparing intervals to steady state, the results are hardly anything to write home about. Half a kilogram more fat over 20 weeks, a pound over 12 weeks, whatever. Yeah, you’ll be ripped by 2032 at that rate. Do intervals have advantages over steady state in some ways? Yes. But steady state has its own set of advantages (not the least of which that it can be done daily which interval can’t, or rather shouldn’t). Both are simply tools with their own sets of pros and cons.

The one study suggesting a massive caloric expenditure from metabolic weight training has never been replicated and, while metabolic weight training may have other advantages (such as glycogen depletion, etc.) it also has limitations (not the least of which is that it’s an inferior way to maintain muscle mass on a diet). To say that metabolic weight training is de-facto superior is simplistically dumb and completely incorrect. All types of weight training are simply tools with their own sets of pros and cons and should be used accordingly.

I don’t want to get into detail on the lowcarb thing just yet, that could be another entire series of blog posts, especially with the low-carb retards coming out of the woodworks after the publication of Gary Taube’s book “Good calories, Bad Calories” (I’ll do a detailed review when I get a chance). Sufficed to say that while low-carb diets may have their advantages, they aren’t magic. At least one study have suggested exactly zero advantage over lowered carbohydrate but non-ketogenic diet when calories are controlled. Low-carbdiets are simply one tool with its own sets of pros and cons.

The studies that low-carb advocates always like to cite are invariably not calorie controlled. And while the subjects may report that they are eating the same amount, this is unlikely to be the case. If low-carb diets have an advantage, it’s that most people spontaneously eat less. The only metabolic advantage is that, people on lowcarb diets are eating less calories.

But for the sake of argument, let’s just assume that all three of the statements above are actually true, at least when studied in isolation. Let’s assume that intervals are superior to steady state, that metabolic weight training is best for fat loss and low-carb diets are superior for fat loss. At least by themselves.

What happens when you throw them all together?

In this case, some bad things. Because while glycogen depletion can improve fat loss (a point I made over 10 years ago in my first book and used for a specific goal in the Ultimate Diet 2.0, even if everybody is only now jumping on that bandwagon), the simple fact is that high-intensity training can NOT be sustained in the long-term without dietary carbohydrate. Eventually glycogen gets depleted, performance falls off and folks overtrain.

Yet now we have people trying to remove all carbohydrates from their diet, while doing glycogen depleting metabolic weight training while trying to add glycogen depleting interval work three or more times per day. Because we have a bunch of gurus who took several isolated data points (of potentially limited validity in the first place), threw them in the training program blender and vomited out some real stupidity.

And that’s where the problem is coming in. It’s a training load that almost nobody could survive with adequate dietary carbohdyrates (recall, as I’ve mentioned previously and the link at the front of this blog post clearly shows, most athletes don’t do intervals more than twice per week yet the average trainee thinks that doing them every day is a good idea) and folks are trying to maintain that for weeks on end without any carbs.

Which isn’t to say that elements of each of the above data points can’t be used, just that they need to be applied and properly.

Does metabolic weight training have its role? Absolutely. I used depletion work at the start of the UD2 cycle to deplete glycogen and improve fat oxidation and offered it as a possible way of generating a certain hormonal response in the Stubborn Fat Solution for Protocols 3 and 4.

Obviously intervals have their place for both fat loss and performance and they are used as part of two of the four protocols in the Stubborn Fat Solution and can be used during other diets for various reasons. The main point, and the thing that it’s time for people to realize is that interval training:

a. Can’t be done every damn day

b. Can’t be done forever without a break

And, of course low-carbohydrate diets have their place (my first book was a 300 page treatise on the technical aspects of low-carbohydrate diets so clearly I feel that they have their place). Again, the first 4 days of the UD2 cycle is low-carbs (prior to a three day very high-carb refeed), and one of the four protocols in the Stubborn Fat Solution is based around the fact that chronic low-carbohydrate diets can help mobilize stubborn body fat.

But that doesn’t mean that low-carb diets are magically de facto superior for fat loss or anything else. Especially if people want or need to perform a good bit of high-intensity training. Carbs will be required in that situation, whether they are consumed daily or during some type of cyclical diet is less relevant than the fact that they will be required at some point.

Essentially, if you want to completely remove carbs from your diet, the amount of high-intensity training of any sort will have to be reduced. And if you want to do a lot of high-intensity training, you will need carbs in your diet. Either diet determines the training or training determines the diet. But trying to do both often causes major problems.

Are you getting my point here? Not only have people completely lost their minds with the pro-interval rhetoric (developing training loads that no athlete would consider doing), it ends up being combined with two other variables that end up making the problem worse. The body can only handle so much heavy training, which is why most of the training that most athletes do is low-intensity. Yet we have a situation, and I know I sound like a fucking broken record, where people are trying to sustain training loads that are simply inhuman in the first place. They want to add too many interval sessions to too much heavy weight training AND do it under conditions of both severe carbohydrate and caloric restriction.

Have I thrown out the word ‘retarded’ yet today?

To be concluded (I think) on Friday.

Lyle

[MR. BMJ]

Research Review: Metabolic Adaptations to Short-term High Intensity Interval Training

by Lyle McDonald


Although I’ve been mainly focusing on fat loss throughout this series on the debate over steady state versus interval training, I want to take another short side-trip and address another area where interval training has been fairly heavily researched: endurance performance. The fastest way I can think to address this is to look at a recent review paper on the topic and do a quick research review.

Lyle

Bodyrecomposition - Lyle McDonald (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com)

***

Gibala MJ, McGee SL. Metabolic adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain? Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2008 Apr;36(2):58-63.

High-intensity interval training (HIT) is a potent time-efficient strategy to induce numerous metabolic adaptations usually associated with traditional endurance training. As little as six sessions of HIT over 2 wk or a total of only approximately 15 min of very intense exercise (approximately 600 kJ), can increase skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and endurance performance and alter metabolic control during aerobic-based exercise.

My comments: It’s long been felt or argued that the only way to reach the pinnacle of endurance performance is through years of grinding effort, usually involving absolute piles of low-intensity training. To a great degree, outside of the occasional period when programs based around intensification have become popular, this has been the basic approach to endurance training.

‘Miles build champions’ is a commonly held adage and after my comments about the slow changes in efficiency (over YEARS of continuous training) on Wednesday, there is probably some merit to this idea.

However, efficiency is only one of several components of performance, the other two major ones being VO2 max and lactate threshold. To a great degree, similar ideas have been held regarding the time course of changes in those components with years being expected to maximize them. But is this true?

Research going back to the 1970’s (by Hickson) had questioned that idea, at least as it pertained to things such as VO2 max. In that study, subjects performed high intensity intervals (6X5 minutes at VO2 max with a 2′ break) three days per week on a bike alternated with 40 minutes running as fast as possible on the other three. In that study, VO2 max increased linearly week to week with one subject approaching an elite (for then) VO2 max score. So clearly there is some indication that at least some aspects of endurance training can improve quite quickly.

In fact, a number of recent studies, typically using cyclists have found that substituting about 15% of the total weekly volume with high intensity intervals can improve performance significantly, by up to 5%, in a matter of weeks (interestingly the maximal effect seems to occur at the three week mark with no further benefits occurring if intervals are continued beyond that point). Clearly this points to something very beneficial going on with interval training and certain aspects of performance. It was this topic that today’s research review examined in some detail.

Their initial comments are essentially identical to mine above pointing out that, while it’s usually been thought that only long-duration endurance training could improve aerobic energy metabolism, more recent work has shown similar adaptations can be induced with a much lower volume of interval training. Interestingly, the adaptations may actually happen faster with the intervals.

The researchers rely primarily on work from their own lab where they utilize a standard interval protocol consisting of a 30 second Wingate test (30 seconds all out against a braked cycle ergometer) repeated 4-6 times with a 4 minute rest period. This workout is performed three times per week for anywhere from 2-6 weeks (the earlier work I mentioned used intervals of varying lengths twice per week for three weeks, or six total sessions). I’d note that most of the work on this lab was performed on essentially untrained college aged men and women NOT highly trained endurance athletes.

I’d note that this type of training protocol looks exactly nothing like the types of interval training being currently propagated for fat loss. Rather, the fat loss type programs are usually based on longer intervals (60-90 seconds) with relatively short rest periods (60-90 seconds); this makes it difficult to apply the research results.

The results from their work are somewhat interesting, in one, a mere two weeks of the above protocol improved exercise tolerance (the ability to sustain a given workload) by nearly double. However, there was no increase in VO2 max suggesting that the adaptations were peripheral (e.g. occurring primarily in the muscle) and not central (e.g. occurring in the body’s ability to transport oxygen via the bloodstream). The researchers note that other studies using HIIT have found an increase in VO2 max but invariably used a larger volume of training.

Looking at the cause of the adaptations, the researchers found increases in aerobically producing energy enzymes that were significant with only the short interval group. In a related study, they compared the above interval protocol to a group that performed standard steady state cardio for 90-120 minutes for the same 6 sessions. Identical results were seen in both groups but the interval group exercised only 2.5 total hours compared to 10.5 hours in the steady state group.

Additional adaptations in the interval group also include changes in carbohydrate metabolism including increased glycogen storage, reduced glycogen utilization and lactate production during exercise along with increased glucose uptake into skeletal muscle. Markers of fat oxidation were unchanged, at least over the 2 week studies (in this vein I’d refer readers back to a previous research review which found that only steady state cardio increased fat oxidation rates and interval training did not).

In contrast, the review mentions another interval training paper (which used a much higher volume of training) that did show an increase in fat oxidation over only 2 weeks. The subjects in that study performed a massive 10 sets of 4 minute intervals at 90% of VO2 max, significantly more volume than the small amount used in the studies described above (and far far more than any of the popular interval programs for fat loss).

Although the paper went into some detail on the signalling mechanisms by which interval training may work, I don’t think a detailed discussion will be that valuable so I’m going to skip over it.

Jumping to the practical implications of their work, the researchers comment that the main complaint about exercise programs is a lack of time and, as such, exercise innovations that allow for similar benefits in less time are clearly of interest from a health point of view. Interval training may play a role here (and I’d note that time efficiency was on of the ‘pros’ I listed in this article) and at least one study suggested greater long-term adherence to exercise programs requiring less time investment.

At the same time, the researchers mention explicitly that it’s unclear how longer term interval programs will work compared to more traditional training programs and there may be different times courses of adaptations for each kind of training (e.g. perhaps interval training causes more rapid initial gains which then plateau sooner).

As well, the type of interval program they use in their lab requires not only specialized equipment but, to quote them “…an extremely high level of subject motivation.” As others have pointed out, the intensities used in many interval training studies are essentially unachievable by beginners which raises many more questions such as:

Can a beginner even achieve the intensities and durations used in these studies to get the benefits?



Would a modified interval training program, using less intense or lower duration intervals achieve the same benefits in the first place?

You get the idea.

Summing up: There’s no doubt (and I haven’t intended to suggest otherwise) that high intensity interval training can have benefits. It’s time effective and may induce similar performance adaptations to longer duration traditional cardio. With regards endurance athletes, it’s clear that even short periods of low volume interval training can have rather large benefits for performance.

But with most of the benefits seeming to occur with only a handful of sessions per week (2-3 is the norm) and with benefits appearing to end fairly quickly (3-6 weeks), we might ask what a trainee should do when either

a. They need to train more frequently than that

b. They are looking at their training over a period longer than a few weeks. That is, if interval training stops providing benefits after 3-6 weeks, what should a trainee do for the remaining 46-49 weeks out of the year?

There is also the issue of how intervals integrate with training when OTHER TYPES OF TRAINING (e.g. weight training) are being done. That is, what happens if someone is training their legs heavily in the weight room twice/week. How realistic is it to then add high intensity interval training to that workload?

As well, what happens when someone (e.g. an athlete or obsessive exerciser) is trying to train daily? What happens then in terms of how they structure their week? If you take much of the current guru-speak (e.g. intervals are the only beneficial way to train) at face value, you end up developing a training week that no human being can survive.

These are the topics I’ll come back to in the remainder of this blog series.

[Conciliator]

It's a joke for fukkenshredded and his friends to think that their personal experiences constitute any kind of controlled research. Not only will fed cardio improve performance and prevent muslce loss, it'll burn just as much fat at the 24-hour mark. Alan's review of the research made it very clear.

Edited for congeniality.

[Conciliator]

I got a kick when juice authority said "I will present scientific facts that support the notion that cardio on an empty stomach in the AM will burn fat" and then he goes on to post a bunch of lay articles with not one scientific reference. Then fukkenshreded goes on to say "several relevant studies have now been posted". LOL. As NM said "So...WHERE ARE THE STUDIES???" It's sad to me that some people think unreferenced articles somehow constitute "scientific fact".

[Ulter]

Do you understand the purpose of a discussion board? It's to post your ideas and experiences. It's all anecdotal. It's not a clinical study in progress. Where did fukkenshredded say his posts were a controlled study? There is just as much clinical evidence that fasted cardio burns more fat as not. So at that point it becomes a matter of practical experience and results. I have not seen the results you've had with your fed cardio. Maybe you can post a pic of how well you did with that. That's how discussion boards work. We post personal opinions based on our results. This is fukkenshredded's results. I'm sure your results blow this away, can't wait to see them.

http://www.anabolicfitness.net/images/Fukk.jpg
http://www.anabolicfitness.net/images/fukkenshredded.jpg

[MR. BMJ]

Sorry guys, this is partially my fault. The member Poantrex, stated an article on the matter with references sited for the work.

fukkenshredded stated "several relevant studies have now been posted".

But he was referring to Poantrex' post. Sorry, i've been meaning to add that in, but forgot. FS wasn't refering to Juice Authorities articles....well he may have also added in JA's along with Poantrex', but justed wanted to state my bad on not getting that up sooner.

NM stated:

Originally posted by Nelson Montana


............................................


Instead of me presenting a litany of logic explaining this (since I've done so in my books, articles and even on this bard) let's keep it simple:

Show me evidence that it does.

Then poantrex followed up with this:

(1) WHEN YOU WAKE UP in the morning after an 8-to-12 hour overnight fast, your body's stores of gylcogen are somewhat depleted. Doing cardio in that state causes your body to mobilize more fat because of the unavailability of glycogen.

(2) EATING CAUSES A RELEASE of insulin, which interferes with the mobilization of bodyfat. Less insulin is present in the morning; therefore you burn more bodyfat when you do your cardio in the morning.

(3) THERE'S LESS CARBOHYDRATE (glucose) in your bloodstream after an overnight fast. With less glucose available, you'll burn more fat.

(4) IF YOU EAT IMMEDIATELY before a workout, you have to burn off carbs you just ate before tapping into stored bodyfat.

(5) WHEN YOU DO CARDIO IN THE MORNING, your metabolism stays elevated for a period of time after the workout is over. If you do cardio in the evening, you will benefit from it, but you fail to take advantage of teh afterburn effect because your metobolic rate drops dramatically as soon as you go to sleep.

Research supports this theory. A study performed at Kansas State University and published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise showed the subjects burned a kilogram (2.2 lbs.) of fat sooner when the exercised in a fasted state in the morining than when the did it later in the day.

The researchers measured respitory gas exchange, caloric expenditure, and carbohydrate/fatty acid metabolism and found that the amount of fat burned during aerobic exercise amounted to 67% of the total energy expenditure in the morning after a 12 hour fast. That's substantially higher than the 50% expenditure achieved when the subjects did the same exercise later in the day or after eating.

A similar study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology looked at the effects of aerobic exercise on lipid oxidation in fed vs. fasted states. The researchers conculded, "Our results support the hypothesis that endurance training enhances lipid oxidation in men after a 12-hour overnight fast."

Yet another paper, "Optimizing Exercise for Fat Loss," reports, "The ability of exercise to selectively promote fat oxidation should be optimized if exercise is done during morning fasted metabolism."

When it comes to "real world fat loss", few people have more experience than Chris Aceto (nutrition guru/advsior to many pro bodybuilders).

Aceto is a firm believer in morning cardio. He unequivocally states, "The fastest way to tap into stored bodyfat is to do cardio first thing in the morning on an empty stomach."

Aceto believes that looking at calories only in terms of energy in vs. energy out is "limited thinking." He asserts that there are more factors involved in real-world results than just energy balance. It all comes back to the old arguement, are all calories created equal?

"Absolutely not!" Aceto declares. "A calorie in not just a calorie, and exercise physiologists freak out when they hear that."

"These guys are working from the assumption that it's just a matter of calories in vs. calories out, period," Chris continues. "With that line of reasoning, they'd be forced to say that if I consumed nothing but candy bars and Coca-Cola and took in 100 calories less than maintenance, I'd lose weight. We know it's not that simple. You have to account for ratios of carbs, protein, and fat."

"Then there's meal frequency: From real-world results we know you put on more muscle mass from five or six meals a day than from three meals a day. There are more things involved than just calories."

There are many other reasons you might want to consider making morning cardio a part of your daily routine. Landry, despite his doubts about whether the fuel source matters admits, "If I had to pick a single factor I thought was most important in a succesful weight-loss program, it would have to be exercise first thing in the morning."

Here are some of the additional benefits of doing cardio early in the morning:

- It makes you feel great all day by releasing mood-enhancing endorphins.

- It energizes you and wakes you up.

- It may help regulate your appetite for the rest of the day

- Your body's circadian rhythm adjusts to your morning routine, making it easier to wake up at the same time every day

- You'll be less likely to blow off your workout when it's out of the way early.

- You can always make time for exercise by setting your alarm earlier in the morning.

- It increases your metabolic rate for hours after the session is over.

Of all those benefits, the post exercise increase in your metabolic rate is the one most talked about. Scientists call this afterburn effect "excess postexercise oxygen consumption," or EPOC.

Looking only at the number and type of calories burned during the session doesn't give you the full picture. You also need to look at the number of calories your elevated metabolism continues to burn after the workout is over.

That's right -- work out in the morning, and you burn calories all day long.

You burn somewhere between 10 and 30 calories extra after exercise at an intensity of less than 60 to 65 percent of maximal heart rate (MHR). In other words, a casual stroll on the treadmill will do next to nothing to increase your metabolism.

EPOC does increase with the intensity (and duration) of the exercise, however. According to Willmore and Costill in Physiology of Sport and Exercise, the EPOC after moderate exercise (75 to 80 percent of MHR) will amount to apporximately .25 calories per minute, or 15 calories per hour. That would provide an additional expenditure of 75 calories. An extra 75 calories is definately no earth shattering, but it does add up over time. In a year, it would mean (in theory) that you'd burn an extra 5.2 pounds of fat from the additional calories expended after your workouts.

One way to get a significant post-exercise afterburn is high-intensity interval training (HIIT). You alternate brief periods of high intensity work (85% of maximum heart rate or more) with brief periods of lower-intensity work. Studies on the effects of HIIT have demonstrated a much higher EPOC, which can add substantially to the day's calorie expenditure.

In one study scientists from the University of Alabama compared the effects of two exercise protocalls on 24 hour energy expenditure:

- Group #1 cycled for 60 minutes at a moderate intensity.

- Group #2 performed HIIT, cycling for 2 minutes at high intensity followed by 2 minutes at low-intensity.

The group that performed HIIT (group #2) burned 160 more calories in 24 hours than the low intensity group.

That would translate to an extra 11.8 pounds of fat burned in one year if they did HIIT five days per week instead of conventional low-intensity training.

Ironically, weight training has a much higher magnitude of EPOC than aerobic training.

Studies have shown increases in metabolic rate of as much as 4-7% over a 24-hour period from resistance training.

Yes - that means bodybuilding does burn fat – albeit through an indirect mechanism. For someone with an expenditure of 2500 calories per day, that could add up to 100 - 175 extra calories burned after your weight training workout is over.

The lesson is simple: Anyone interested in losing body fat who is not lifting weights should first take up a regimen of bodybuilding, then – and only then – start thinking about the morning cardio!

A common concern about doing cardio in the fasted state, especially if it’s done with high intensity, is the possibility of losing muscle. After an overnight fast, glycogen, blood glucose and insulin are all low. As we’ve already concluded, this is an optimum environment for burning fat.

Unfortunately, it may also be an optimum environment for burning muscle because carbohydrate fuel sources are low and levels of the catabolic stress hormone cortisol are high. It sounds like morning cardio might be a double-edged sword, but there are ways to avert muscle loss.

All aerobic exercise will have some effect on building muscle, but as long as you don’t overdo it, you shouldn’t worry about losing muscle. It's a fact that muscle proteins are broken down and used for energy during aerobic exercise. But you are constantly breaking down and rebuilding muscle tissue anyway. This process is called "protein turnover" and it’s a daily fact of life. Your goal is to tip the scales slightly in favor of increasing the anabolic side and reducing the catabolic side just enough so you stay anabolic and you gain or at least maintain muscle.

How do you build up more muscle than you break down? First, avoid excessive cardio. Aceto suggests limiting your cardio on an empty stomach to 30 minutes, and then it would be "highly unlikely that amino acids will be burned as fuel." He also mentions that "a strong cup of coffee should facilitate a shifting to burn more fat and less glycogen. If you can spare glycogen, you’ll ultimately spare protein too." You might also want to consider experimenting with the thermogenic ephedrine-caffeine-aspirin stack (or it’s herbal equivalent).

Second, give your body the proper nutritional support. Losing muscle probably has more to do with inadequate nutrition than with excessive aerobics. Provide yourself with the proper nutritional support for the rest of the day, including adequate meal frequency, protein, carbohydrates and total calories, and it’s not as likely that there will be a net loss of muscle tissue over each 24-hour period.

Third, keep training with heavy weights, even during a fat loss phase. Using light weights and higher reps thinking that it will help you get more "cut" is a mistake: What put the muscle on in the first place is likely to help you keep it there.

Still petrified of losing your hard-earned muscle, but you’d like to take advantage of the fat-burning and metabolism-boosting effects of morning cardio?

One strategy many bodybuilders use is to drink a protein shake or eat a protein only meal 30-60 minutes prior to the morning session. The protein without the carbs will minimize the insulin response and allow you to mobilize fat while providing amino acids to prevent muscle breakdown.

In conclusion, it seems that morning cardio has enough indisputable benefits to motivate most people to set their alarms early. But let’s talk bottom line results here:

Does it really result in more "real world fat loss" than aerobics performed at other times of the day or after eating? I have to believe it does. Experience, common sense and research all tell me so.

Nevertheless, this will obviously continue to be an area of much debate, and clearly, more research is needed. In the meantime, while the scientists are busy in their labs measuring respiratory exchange ratios, caloric expenditures and rates of substrate utilization, I’m going to keep waking up at 6:00 AM every morning to get on my elliptical.

References

1. Aceto, Chris. Everything you need to know about fat loss. Club Creavalle, Inc. (1997).

2. Bahr, R. Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption – Magnitude, Mechanisms and Practical Implications. Acta Physiol Scand. Suppl. (1992) 605. 1-70.

3. Bergman, BC, Brooks, GA. Respiratory gas-exchange ratios during graded exercise in fed and fasted trained and untrained men. Journal of Applied Physiology. (1999) 86: 2.

4. Brehm, B.A., and Gutin, B. Recovery energy expenditure for steady state exercise in runners and non-exercisers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. (1986) 18: 205,

5. Brybner, BW. The effects of exercise intensity on body composition, weight loss, and dietary composition in women. Journal of American College of Nutrition, (1997) 16: 68-73

6. Landry, Greg. The Metabolism System for Weight Loss. Greg Landry. (2000).

7. Maehlum, S., etc al. Magnitude and duration of post exercise oxygen consumption in healthy young subjects. Metabolism (1986) 35 (5): 425-429.

8. McCarty, MF. Optimizing Exercise for Fat Loss. Medical Hypothesis. (1995) 44: 325-330

Here is the link to the page for verification: http://www.************.com/forum/steroids-discussion-forum/final-word-cardio-empty-stomach-247580-4.html

BMJ
:bmj:

[Conciliator]

Do you understand the purpose of a discussion board? It's to post your ideas and experiences. It's all anecdotal. It's not a clinical study in progress.No. A discussion board is for an exchange of ideas. It's not all anecdotal, because you can talk about research. And that's what people are constantly asking for, since uncontrolled anecdote is essentially worthless.

Where did fukkenshredded say his posts were a controlled study?He didn't say it was controlled, but he said several times that his experience was his "own study" that "proved" fasted cardio was better. One, that's no study at all. Second, it doesn't prove anything considering how unstructured and uncontrolled it is. It's sad when people who are juggling a myriad of factors think that their personal experiences are a "study" that can "prove" specific treatments. Not even close. There's a reason for controls, for comparitive studies, for blinding, for randomization, for scientific measurements, for placebo groups...

There is just as much clinical evidence that fasted cardio burns more fat as not.No theres not. People blindly look at fat oxidaiton only during exercise while ignoring post-exercise fat oxidation and 24-hour fat oxidation. Who cares if you burn a greater amount of fat during your cardio session? The acute effect doesn't matter. All we care about is how much fat is oxidized by the end of the day. And the reseach shows that fed cardio will burn just as much fat, without the catabolism and with improved performance.

Sure, if you ingest carbs before training, blood glucose will be elevated, lipolysis will be inhibited, and fat transport into muscle will be blunted... DURING THE CARDIO SESSION. However, exercise performance will be improved, more fat will be burned post training, and fat loss at the 24-hour mark will be identical. That's not to mention that the research on trained men shows that fat oxidation during training is the SAME even with pre-workout nutrition.

So at that point it becomes a matter of practical experience and results. I have not seen the results you've had with your fed cardio. Maybe you can post a pic of how well you did with that. That's how discussion boards work. We post personal opinions based on our results. This is fukkenshredded's results. I'm sure your results blow this away, can't wait to see them.It's sad when people think that the person with the best looking pics is right. Do you not realize that you can find people out there with awesome physiques who do things completely different? That doesn't mean that all approaches work equally well. It means you need controlled scientific studies that can detect relatively small effects (that can add up over time). Pics mean little to nothing, especially when you're talking about one parameter like fasted or fed cardio.

If it makes you happy though, here's a pic of me at 6% BF. I didn't do fasted cardio. I didn't even do fed cardio. I did no cardio at all. I think cardio is unnecessary to get ripped, so I just implemented a caloric deficit and did heavy lifting. Does this "study" of mine "prove" that cardio is worthless when cutting? No, I don't think that for a second.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/238/cut36ar5.jpg

[MR. BMJ]

Conciliator,

I think you bring up some good and valid points, but I think it could have done without the "fukken" parts to get your point across. You bring a lot to the table, and I know you are not a bad guy, but can we agree that maybe instead of the "It's a joke for fukkenshredded and his friends to think that their personal experiences constitute any kind of controlled research. That's just fukkenstupid.".....maybe it could have just ended with "...that is just way wrong" etc.

While I am not trying to sound like a damn wuss, we just like the name calling to be on the low side here at AF.

Really what i'd like is for you to visit more as you definately bring a TON of knowledge to the table, knowledge that can educate a lot of us here on certain topics, but not at the expense of people being called "fukkenstupid" or "fukkenidiots" just because they may or may not be misinformed.

Thanks bro, just trying to keep the thread active and informative without it going into flames:)

Hope to see ya here more though.

BMJ
:bmj:

[Conciliator]

Conciliator,

I think you bring up some good and valid points, but I think it could have done without the "fukken" parts to get your point across. You bring a lot to the table, and I know you are not a bad guy, but can we agree that maybe instead of the "It's a joke for fukkenshredded and his friends to think that their personal experiences constitute any kind of controlled research. That's just fukkenstupid.".....maybe it could have just ended with "...that is just way wrong" etc.

While I am not trying to sound like a damn wuss, we just like the name calling to be on the low side here at AF.

Really what i'd like is for you to visit more as you definately bring a TON of knowledge to the table, knowledge that can educate a lot of us here on certain topics, but not at the expense of people being called "fukkenstupid" or "fukkenidiots" just because they may or may not be misinformed.

Thanks bro, just trying to keep the thread active and informative without it going into flames:)

Hope to see ya here more though.

BMJ
:bmj:Fair enough.

[Ulter]

No. A discussion board is for an exchange of ideas. It's not all anecdotal, because you can talk about research. And that's what people are constantly asking for, since uncontrolled anecdote is essentially worthless.


I posted that a discussion board is to post ideas and you say no it's an exchange of ideas. Maybe you can explain to me how that exchange is made without posting.

Yes we talk about research in about 3% of the threads. The rest is anecdotal. People post their results so others can read it. So by your statement 97% of the information exchange on a discussion board is worthless. Sorry, I don't agree with that thinking.


He didn't say it was controlled, but he said several times that his experience was his "own study" that "proved" fasted cardio was better. One, that's no study at all. Second, it doesn't prove anything considering how unstructured and uncontrolled it is. It's sad when people who are juggling a myriad of factors think that their personal experiences are a "study" that can "prove" specific treatments. Not even close. There's a reason for controls, for comparitive studies, for blinding, for randomization, for scientific measurements, for placebo groups...


Doing a study on yourself doesn't require any of that. Doing a study on one's self is something we all do. If you trust research more than you do trying something for yourself to see how you as an individual react to it in order to determine what works for you, you're going about it wrong. Why would you read about what your results will be instead of just doing it and finding out for yourself?


No theres not. People blindly look at fat oxidaiton only during exercise while ignoring post-exercise fat oxidation and 24-hour fat oxidation. Who cares if you burn a greater amount of fat during your cardio session? The acute effect doesn't matter. All we care about is how much fat is oxidized by the end of the day. And the reseach shows that fed cardio will burn just as much fat, without the catabolism and with improved performance.

Sure, if you ingest carbs before training, blood glucose will be elevated, lipolysis will be inhibited, and fat transport into muscle will be blunted... DURING THE CARDIO SESSION. However, exercise performance will be improved, more fat will be burned post training, and fat loss at the 24-hour mark will be identical. That's not to mention that the research on trained men shows that fat oxidation during training is the SAME even with pre-workout nutrition.

Actually what most people do is not look at anything blindly or otherwise. The article above (with cited research that you asked for) pretty much sums up what people do. They try it both ways and see what gives them the best results. The author writes, "Does it really result in more "real world fat loss" than aerobics performed at other times of the day or after eating? I have to believe it does. Experience, common sense and research all tell me so." See, it's done like that. Experience, common sense, and a little research.




It's sad when people think that the person with the best looking pics is right.
Yes it is. Good thing I didn't say that.
You belittled what fukkenshredded posted. He posted what fasted cardio did for him. I showed you his results. I just asked to see the results of your fed cardio. You have none. That's okay. It's not a picture showdown.


If it makes you happy though, here's a pic of me at 6% BF. I didn't do fasted cardio. I didn't even do fed cardio. I did no cardio at all. I think cardio is unnecessary to get ripped, so I just implemented a caloric deficit and did heavy lifting. Does this "study" of mine "prove" that cardio is worthless when cutting? No, I don't think that for a second.

That's nice. Another 3% and you'd be even.
Actually yes, it does prove that you don't need cardio to look like that. I know lots of other guys that can do that same thing. So don't sell yourself short, you've proved in your own study what works. Anecdotally. The next time someone tells me it's impossible to hold muscle and get to 6% without cardio I'm going to link them to your study.

[Conciliator]

I posted that a discussion board is to post ideas and you say no it's an exchange of ideas. Maybe you can explain to me how that exchange is made without posting.I was saying no to your statement that "It's all anecdotal". Of course it's not.

Yes we talk about research in about 3% of the threads. The rest is anecdotal. People post their results so others can read it. So by your statement 97% of the information exchange on a discussion board is worthless. Sorry, I don't agree with that thinking. 3% is a nice arbitrary number. You know, pretty much everything I post has basis in research I've read. And I post on a lot of different topics. If people ask, I can provide references and links to pubmed. Take, for example, my last post in the "receptor cleaning" thread. I realize that most people don't read any research and aren't familiar with any research. I'd definitely agree that most of what they post is worthless as far as evidence for causal claims is concerned.

Doing a study on yourself doesn't require any of that. Doing a study on one's self is something we all do. If you trust research more than you do trying something for yourself to see how you as an individual react to it in order to determine what works for you, you're going about it wrong.I think that mindset is ridiculous. If you think you're immune to the placebo effect, you don't understand what it is. And if you think you can provide sufficent controls and scientifically accurate measurements to establish causal effects, you're kidding yourself. The reason there's someone out there for every supplement ever made, who swears up and down that it works, is because of this mindset. They think they can "study" it on themselves. I'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself if you think that.

Why would you read about what your results will be instead of just doing it and finding out for yourself?Because you can't reliably find out for yourself. People "find out for themselves" things that are completely false, all the time. That's why scientific controls exist. Science measures, in real people, in real life, in controlled conditions, the real life effects that certain treatments have. A concept you don't seem to grasp is that you can't reliably find out for yourself or others how well something works in relation to something else.

For example, I might do my typical cut diet, but this time add in 2g of flax seeds per day. Let's say at the end of 10 weeks I feel I had the best cut ever. I'm in no position to conclude that the flax seeds made my cut great. Not only are my skin fold measurements of LBM/BF relatively crude, but I may have hiked a lot more that summer. Or maybe I had a less stressful job that allowed me to sleep more that summer. Or maybe my belief that the flax seeds would improve my cut unconsciously motivated me to eat cleaner or work out more intensely. Or maybe I swithced my protein sources from whey to casein. Maybe I got a lot more sun exposure which inadvertantly cured a vitamin D deficiency. Whatever. The point is, there are are a TON of variables that you're juggling. A lot of the variables are things that you're not even aware about. Rarely does only one variable change. And even if it did, you have problems with the placebo effect and with making measurements with sufficient accuracy.

Actually what most people do is not look at anything blindly or otherwise. The article above (with cited research that you asked for) pretty much sums up what people do. They try it both ways and see what gives them the best results.And as I explained, individuals are absolutely in no position to evaluate two treatments for superiority. People try things both ways and you'll have a ton who feel one way is better and a ton who think another way is better. Why? Because they're in no position to evaluate things like that.

The author writes, "Does it really result in more "real world fat loss" than aerobics performed at other times of the day or after eating? I have to believe it does. Experience, common sense and research all tell me so." See, it's done like that. Experience, common sense, and a little research.

Yes it is. Good thing I didn't say that.Yes, you essentially did. You said the clinical evidence is split (which is not true when you look at the populations studied). Because of this, you said "it becomes a matter of practical experience and results". You then asked for my pic, posted "fukkenshredded's result", and then insinuated that my pics won't "blow [his] away", as though that establishes something.

You belittled what fukkenshredded posted.Yes, I did. It's extremely foolish to think that your personal experience constitues a "study" that "proves" something.

He posted what fasted cardio did for him. I showed you his results. I just asked to see the results of your fed cardio. You have none. That's okay. It's not a picture showdown.Why would you post fukkenshredded's pic, ask for my pic, and say "it's a matter of practical experience and results", unless you think the pics somehow provide evidence that one is better than the other? It's definitely not a matter of individual results. That can't establish the superiority of anything. It can only tell you that with a certain protocol, a given individual can reach a certain level of conditioning.

That's nice. Another 3% and you'd be even.
Actually yes, it does prove that you don't need cardio to look like that. I know lots of other guys that can do that same thing. So don't sell yourself short, you've proved in your own study what works. Anecdotally. The next time someone tells me it's impossible to hold muscle and get to 6% without cardio I'm going to link them to your study.LOL. My experience is NOT a study. It's anecdote, which is fundamentally different than a study. It doesn't prove that dieting with no cardio is better than any other approach. It just shows that with that protocol, you can get lean. Of course, you can get lean (or big) with a dizzying variety of diets, training, and supplemention. All the people who have done so with wildly different approaches are NOT studies. They're each a mountain of confounding factors that produced a desired effect. You can NOT reliably establish a superiority claim between two treatments while experimenting as an individual. At best, you have a personal experience, feeling, a hunch, and possibly numbers that INVITE actual research. It's not a study and it doesn't prove that the treatment did anything.

[Ulter]

Good thing the medical community throughout the world completely disagrees with you. Because the vast majority of medicine practiced in the world is done anecdotally.

If you don't trust your own judgment to determine which of two given protocols worked best for you I have nothing to say to that. Because THAT is foolish. In fact, I don't believe you. You're too intelligent for me to believe that you need someone else to tell you what your results are. You're arguing against that and telling me that you'll fool yourself with placebo effects, but I'll bet I'm right and you really are smart enough to run two protocol and determine which was the best result.
But like I said, the research is there in the article if you care to look it up.

Yes I saw your article. The subject of your article was first discussed here, studies and everything, SEVEN YEARS AGO. And the subject has been discussed many times since. But hey, thanks for the trip down memory lane.

http://www.afboard.com/forum/94598-post11.html Note the date





My experience is NOT a study. It's anecdote, which is fundamentally different than a study. It doesn't prove that dieting with no cardio is better than any other approach. It just shows that with that protocol, you can get lean.

Study: research or a detailed examination and analysis of a subject

So what I wrote was correct. By examining the details of your diet protocol with no cardio and analysizing the photo (and trusting you because I didn't see you do no cardio) I can determine that it can be done. Not that one method is better. But that 6% can be achieved with no cardio. I have produced a study, by definition, (Okay you did it but I'm taking credit) using you and your personal experience. Like fukkenshredded did.
You see you two have more in common than you thought.

[Conciliator]

Good thing the medical community throughout the world completely disagrees with you. Because the vast majority of medicine practiced in the world is done anecdotally.Oh really? Is that how they approve new medications? Is that how they determine optimal dosing? Don't think so. The medical community doesn't disagree with me at all. They practice what's called "evidence-based medicine". You should look it up some time. That evidence is NOT anecdote, lol. It's based on the scientific method.

If you don't trust your own judgment to determine which of two given protocols worked best for you I have nothing to say to that. Because THAT is foolish.No, it's kind of like socratic wisdom. I'm smart enough to know that I'm in no position to make conclusive determinations about which of two given protocols produces the best results. I'm not so naive to think that I can do so without comparitive groups, controls, placebos, blinding, etc. Unfortuantely, we see you're not a scientific thinker, so I think we're at an impasse. All I can do is recommend that you become more familiar with science and the scientific method so that you can be aware of your limitations. Right now, you're oblivious to them.

But like I said, the research is there in the article if you care to look it up.Are you talking about the post by poantrex? That didn't establish that you burn more fat from fasted cardio than from fed cardio. Please post what you apparently think is so convincing. I'm not seeing it.

Yes I saw your article. It's funny, I get the impression that you think it's ground breaking and that you're just so much smarter than everyone here. The subject of your article was first discussed here, studies and all, SEVEN YEARS AGO. And the subject has been discussed many times since. But hey, thanks for the trip down memory lane.

http://www.afboard.com/forum/94598-post11.htmlWhy would you say that I think it's groudbreaking when I cited research from as old as 1992? It's not groundbreaking at all, but not a lot of people are familiar with it. You're also being disingenuous to act like your link is in any way similar to my post (e.g. a "trip down memory lane"). I posted excerpts from several papers that talk specifically about the effect, including recent and in vivo ones. It was a good review that you're sloughing off since you don't like me.

[Ulter]

It was a good review that you're sloughing off since you don't like me.

I don't know you. So it's hard to tell without clinical reseach if I like you or not.


Oh really? Is that how they approve new medications? Is that how they determine optimal dosing? Don't think so. The medical community doesn't disagree with me at all. They practice what's called "evidence-based medicine". You should look it up some time. That evidence is NOT anecdote, lol. It's based on the scientific method.

I'm sorry, where did I post anything about approving medicine. That's a government/pharma function. That's not practicing medicine. Straight there now? Did the clinical research on Vioxx work to determine it's safety? No. The anecdotal evidence did though. The anedotal evidence ALWAYS does, even where clinical research fails.

Evidence based medicine is most often based on anecdotal evidence especially day to day where there is no clinical evidence. Most of medicine is anecdotal. Look it up.
Doctors do not wait for clinical evidence to practice medicine, the patients would all die waiting. They can actually try two protocols and see which one works best. Hard to believe I know, but it's true, they can. Doctors with a long time practice do what's worked for their patients in the past. Um... that's anecdotal.

[Gymintensity56]

Did i see one of FS's posts say that 600 calories are in a pound of muscle?? did anyone else read that? if so I think that is far off. I have been taught by a kins proffessor and CSCS that a pound of muscle is approx. 2500 calories. just wondering why he thinks a lb of muscle is 600 cals???

[Conciliator]

Did i see one of FS's posts say that 600 calories are in a pound of muscle?? did anyone else read that? if so I think that is far off. I have been taught by a kins proffessor and CSCS that a pound of muscle is approx. 2500 calories. just wondering why he thinks a lb of muscle is 600 cals???A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories when burned. That part's correct. What you're thinking about is the cost of synthesizing a pound of muscle. It's still far from resolved, but it's estimated that a surplus of between 2300 and 3500 Cal is requried to build a pound of muscle. So in contrast to fat, muscle takes a lot more energy to put together than it provides when broken down. If you want a reference, see Williams M: Nutrition for health fitness and sport. In Edited by Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; 2005:227-228, 478.

[velocity22]

Ok let me add a little psychology to this stuff.

I've worked with a couple sports psychologists over the years and in this whole damned fasted-non-fasted cardio debate no one talks about belief in what they are doing.

I think, whether or not you are fasted, or non-fasted, morning or night, if you BELIEVE in what you are doing it's going to work. There are studies of chemo patients who believed in the treatment who go into remission. There are patients who don't believe in the same treatment and they die.

Bottom line, if you believe that you'll lose fat on an empty stomach at 5 am then you've probably got a better shot at it then the guy who really has no clue as to whether it's going to work for him. If you don't believe in what you're doing you may as well go :fishing::fishing: you'll probably burn more fat because you're in that "fat burning" zone right?

Sorry to get all Wayne Dyer on ya.:nerd:

[Conciliator]

I don't know you. So it's hard to tell without clinical reseach if I like you or not.Personal sentiments and opinions are a lot different from establishing causal relationships.

I'm sorry, where did I post anything about approving medicine. That's a government/pharma function. That's not practicing medicine. Straight there now? Did the clinical research on Vioxx work to determine it's safety? No. The anecdotal evidence did though. The anedotal evidence ALWAYS does, even where clinical research fails.Now you're talking about safety... about the absence of a (toxic) effect. That's a lot different than establishing that something has an effect. Research can provide some evidence for a lack of toxicity, however, it can never prove the absence of toxic effects. The absense of an effect is not something that can be proven. Research establishes whether a treatment produces statistically significant results. Anecodote can NOT do that. At best, anecdote can provide clues that invite scientific examination. There are many adverse case reports (a form of anecdote). A good number of them have absolutely nothing to do with the treatment in question.

Evidence based medicine is most often based on anecdotal evidence especially day to day where there is no clinical evidence. Most of medicine is anecdotal. Look it up.Evidence based medicine is NOT based on anecdotal evidence. You obviously don't understand what the "Evidence based" in that means. Most of medecine is not anecdotal. As the wiki entry for evidence based medicine explains: "Evidence-based medicine categorizes different types of clinical evidence and ranks them according to the strength of their freedom from the various biases that beset medical research. For example, the strongest evidence for therapeutic interventions is provided by systematic review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving a homogeneous patient population and medical condition. In contrast, patient testimonials, case reports [anecdote], and even expert opinion have little value as proof because of the placebo effect, the biases inherent in observation and reporting of cases, difficulties in ascertaining who is an expert, and more."

You say that I need to look it up, but where? When I google "medicine is anecdotal" the first result is wiki's entry for "Anecdotal evidence". There, it says:
The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method.
...
In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: information that is not based on facts or careful study, non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts.
...
For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence is called a case report, which is a more formalized type of evidence subjected to peer review. [6] Although such evidence is not regarded as scientific, it is sometimes regarded as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question."

Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as supporting evidence.

Doctors do not wait for clinical evidence to practice medicine, the patients would all die waiting.What are you talking about? After systematically identifying an illness, doctors rely on a massive history of clinical evidence when they make determinations for which drugs to use, the dose to administer, and how they should be taken. That's all based on clinical evidence... from evidence based medecine.
They can actually try two protocols and see which one works best. Hard to believe I know, but it's true, they can. Doctors with a long time practice do what's worked for their patients in the past. Um... that's anecdotal.Yes, doctors have preferences and that is anecdotal... but it still does NOT establish the superiority of a given protocol. Do you not understand that? Just like everyone else, doctors are subject to bias. If they think a certain treatment will work better than another, they're biased in how they interpret the results. That's the whole purpose of double blinding in research. Doctors are constrained by evidence based medicine, by clinical research, in the choices they have for treating a given illness. A doctor can't prescribe a treatment for which the treatment has not been approved, no matter who has anecdotal evidence that it works. To do that is malpractice. Drugs are approved based on clinical research, never anecdote. Within the treatment choices available, doctors are subject to the same biases that everyone else is. Their experiences can offer clues, just like bodybuilders and their experiences, but they absolutely can NOT establish causal relationships or give reliable comparative evidence.

[Conciliator]

Bottom line, if you believe that you'll lose fat on an empty stomach at 5 am then you've probably got a better shot at it then the guy who really has no clue as to whether it's going to work for him.That's called the placebo effect. And it's an effect that the scientific method tries to negate. People don't want to know if your belief that something works has an effect (the placebo). They want to know if the treatment itself (the fasted/fed cardio) has an effect. That's one of the many reasons that anecdote is very weak evidence. People have beliefs and those beliefs skew the results so that the treatment effect can't accurately be evaluated.

[Blut Wump]

That looks like a good excuse to roll out the link to Placebonol again

Placebonol Offers Miracle Cure(s) (http://www.glossynews.com/artman/publish/article_23.shtml)

Pharmaceutical giant Naildge Amama this week was awarded FDA clearance to roll out its newest prescription wonder, Placebonol. This breakthrough drug boasts over a 30% cure rate across the board. The drug may be taken preventatively twice a day as a precaution against cancer, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, bowel irregularity, male pattern baldness and weeping genital sores, just to name a few. Further, the FDA acknowledged that absolutely no drug is more affective at treating all psychosomatic illnesses.

"The beauty is this, when you get sick you take something specially designed to cure it, and you have a 30-80% recovery rate. When you take Placebonol you don't even have to know what you are treating or how many ailments you are treating, you can simply know that it's working." Says Archie "Slick" Birmingham, marketing coordinator for the product.

Trial doctor reports, "We have been slyly using this as the test drug for all of our clinical trials for the last 35 years. The results speak for themselves." In many case studies where this test drug was administered it had comparable if not higher success rates than the drug in trial." The active ingredient, Inerticose, may sound very active, but don't worry, it's not."

Executives say the drug will retail for around $38 per day and has the lowest cost per cure rate of any drug on the market. Sources close to the situation tell that the executives have already begun living obscenely lavish lifestyles, including champagne enema's and the senseless defacing of antique art.

"This drug is going to take some faith on the part of the consumers. Without that, it's not going to go anywhere. Trust us that it is in fact doing at least something. This is the best medicine ever," added Slick, "I think I'm going to start taking it for my gout!" When asked if in fact laughter was actually the best medicine he replied "Don't know, but we're going to be doing that all the way to the bank, so I'll get back to you."

Side affects may include tooth decay and excitability in children. Not recommended for those suffering from diabetes.

[Ulter]

Now you're talking about safety... about the absence of a (toxic) effect. That's a lot different than establishing that something has an effect. Research can provide some evidence for a lack of toxicity, however, it can never prove the absence of toxic effects. The absense of an effect is not something that can be proven. Research establishes whether a treatment produces statistically significant results. Anecodote can NOT do that. At best, anecdote can provide clues that invite scientific examination. There are many adverse case reports (a form of anecdote). A good number of them have absolutely nothing to do with the treatment in question.


Yes I was talking about safety, but I don't have to stop there. Drug companies have sold drugs, approved by the FDA, that have NO EFFECT on the condition they are used for and the clinical research was wrong. They just found another in January (Zetia). If not for the failsafe anecdotal evidence these drugs would be sold forever. Reports of the failure of the drug led to a new clinical trial. That trial wasn't published for nearly 2 years. Difficulty determining the data outcome was the reason cited. I guess the researchers couldn't determine a comparitive outcome. Does it work or not. Or maybe their evidence based medicine didn't give them a result contrary to the anecdotal evidence, try as they might.

Dr. Steven Nissen, the chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, said the results were “shocking.” Patients should not be prescribed Zetia unless all other cholesterol drugs have failed, he said.

“This is as bad a result for the drug as anybody could have feared,” Dr. Nissen said. Millions of patients may be taking a drug that has no benefits for them, raising their risk of heart attacks and exposing them to potential side effects, he said.


Research establishes whether a treatment produces statistically significant results.
Really? So how did the research miss this and the anecdotal evidence pick it up?

If you had to Google medicine is anecdotal then you're right I shouldn't have said look it up. I thought looking things up was your job. That's pretty weak. I don't need an explantion of what evidence based means. I was making a point, not a definition.

This isn't going anywhere. Your arguing for the sake of it. Your not proving anything except you don't trust yourself, or anyone else, to be able to determine something as simple as their own fat loss without a clinical study showing they lost the fat. The rest of us are confident we can try two protocols and decide which one took more fat off. It could be just because we have decades more experience than you do. But I don't think so.

As you know, studies are often skewed to achieve the desired result. You could citing research that is skewed and you wouldn't even know it. Because you didn't try it for yourself.


A doctor can't prescribe a treatment for which the treatment has not been approved, no matter who has anecdotal evidence that it works.

That's wrong. Do you know what "off label use" means?

[anabolic24/7]

You don't need a study to tell you what works or doesn't work in regards to your physique.
Try every idea that seems logical and see if it works for you.
If it works fine, if it doesn't work move on. You dont keep doing it just because it worked for someone else or a lab coat said it would work.
The principle is really quite simple.


This thread reminds me of Andy13's first days on the boards.

[drrman]

most everything i ever post comes from my own personal experiences, not studies. I will read some studies and other peoples experiences to decide how to do something first time or decide what routes i want to try first be it diet, cardio, juice etc, but all in all i think experience with different methods, compounds, diets etc means more than any number of studes one guy reads and quotes on the net, just my oppinion.

I can say from my OWN personal experience morning cardio on an empty stomach is far more effective, at least it is for me, thats MY experience and others can read that and deduce what they like from it

[xtinct]

Conciliator, I am glad to see you posting here again. Your information about DNP was a real eye-opener and much appreciated.

On the current subject, I see your point and there definitely is a big difference between anecdotes and a double blind study but in many areas of bodybuilding anecdotes is all we are ever going to have and they do have value. For example, there is never going to be a double blind study that will tell us whether 1000mg test plus 1000mg tren is more effective than 2000mg test by itself. That study will never happen. So instead I look to the reports of others and if several people that are in a similar position report good results then I will give it a try. That does not make it a "study" in the sense you are using the word but it's the best anyone can do.

[Conciliator]

Yes I was talking about safety, but I don't have to stop there. Drug companies have sold drugs, approved by the FDA, that have NO EFFECT on the condition they are used for and the clinical research was wrong. They just found another in January (Zetia). If not for the failsafe anecdotal evidence these drugs would be sold forever. Reports of the failure of the drug led to a new clinical trial. That trial wasn't published for nearly 2 years. Difficulty determining the data outcome was the reason cited. I guess the researchers couldn't determine a comparitive outcome. Does it work or not. Or maybe their evidence based medicine didn't give them a result contrary to the anecdotal evidence, try as they might.

Dr. Steven Nissen, the chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, said the results were “shocking.” Patients should not be prescribed Zetia unless all other cholesterol drugs have failed, he said.

“This is as bad a result for the drug as anybody could have feared,” Dr. Nissen said. Millions of patients may be taking a drug that has no benefits for them, raising their risk of heart attacks and exposing them to potential side effects, he said.Ulter, You should be ashamed for misrepreseting what happened with Zetia. Anecdote had nothing to do with anything. You're inventing things to help argue your point. Zetia was approved as a cholesterol lowering drug in 2002. Clinical research showed it worked for that purpose. The combination with Zocor, called Vytorin, was also shown in clinical evidence to reduce cholesterol by 50-60%. That led to its approval by the FDA in 2004.

You're either lying or misrepresenting things you when you say "Reports of the failure of the drug led to a new clinical trial." There were no reports of the failure of the drug. The FDA did not mandate the ENHANCE study. The company conducted the study on its own accord for futher evidence of its efficacy.

You're also either lying or misrepresenting things when you say "the clinical research was wrong". The new ENHANCE study didn't show that any previous research was wrong. Zetia was researched as a cholesterol lowering drug, and it works for this purpose. When Vytorin was approved, it was again shown to reduce cholesterol. And the new ENHANCE study confirmed it yet again. At least three times, clinical research has shown that Zedia reduces cholesterol levels.

The difference with the new ENHANCE study is that Zetia had never been studied for its effect on plaque accumulation. The new study found that Zocor, the drug that Zetia was combined with, worked just as well by itself (statistically) as the combination. The combination actually performed more poorly than Zocor alone, but that difference wasn't statistically significant. The combination still worked better than placebo though at preventing plaque accumulation. And the combination worked better at lowering cholesterol than Zocor alone. The shock of the study is that it didn't prove that Zetia added to Zocor's beneficial effects on plaque formation. That's it.

I think it's pathetic for you to invent the idea that it was "the failsafe anecdotal evidence" that prevented this drug from being sold forever. That's pure bullshit. Anecdote had nothing to do with anything here. It's unbelivable to me that you would interject that into the story to try to prove your point. It was the company's own clinical study that raised flags about Vytorin. Not anecdote. And the drug will still be used to lower cholesterol, which it's been proven to do several times. Vytorin will continue to be sold. There are much larger studies currently in progress that look at more important end points, like heart attracks.

Everything in this story has been spurred by CLINICAL RESEARCH. You're ignoring the posts I've made about the unreliability of anecdote in evidence-based medicine. I've already looked it up for you. Read it.

[Conciliator]

Really? So how did the research miss this and the anecdotal evidence pick it up?The research didn't miss it, the research FOUND it. Everyone's opinion on this drug has been shaped from the clinical research that found no added benefit on plaque formation. You and I both know that you're talking out of your ass when you claim that the "anecdotal evidence picked it up". Bullshit.

If you had to Google medicine is anecdotal then you're right I shouldn't have said look it up. I thought looking things up was your job. That's pretty weak. I don't need an explantion of what evidence based means. I was making a point, not a definition.It's the ultimate in jackassery to say something and then tell other people to go find the evidence for it. Where am I supposed to "look up" your claim that evidence-based means anecdote-based when talking about "evidence based medicine"? Because I've looked. Everything I read says otherwise, as you've seen me post. If you're trying to make a point, what is it? What am supposed to find "looking it up"? Or was that just empty, pointless rhetoric?

This isn't going anywhere. Your arguing for the sake of it. Your not proving anything except you don't trust yourself, or anyone else, to be able to determine something as simple as their own fat loss without a clinical study showing they lost the fat. The rest of us are confident we can try two protocols and decide which one took more fat off. It could be just because we have decades more experience than you do. But I don't think so.No, it's because you're not conscious of your own limitations. You can definitely determine whether you lose fat. However, you can't determine very accurately how much you lost compared to a DEXA scan. The real problem, though, is that you're not in any position to reliably ascribe that fat loss to one variable. You're especially not in any position to do that twice and then try to compare different protocols. There are thousands of other variables. Can your own experiences give you clues? Yes, definitely. Can it give you an idea about whether something works? Yes. Can you mislead yourself? It happens all the time. Can your personal experiences prove whether someone is having a causal effect or whether one thing is superior to another? Not a chance in hell. Even the opinion and experiences of respected doctors who are considered authorities is considered to "have little value as proof because of the placebo effect, the biases inherent in observation and reporting of cases."

As you know, studies are often skewed to achieve the desired result. You could citing research that is skewed and you wouldn't even know it. Because you didn't try it for yourself.I have to laugh to myself when you say things like this. In your head, you're immune to placebo, a lack of control, weak measurements, no statistical analysis, etc. Your experiences do NOT allow you to make conclusive determinations that you can compare to the research, to see if it's skewed, lol. You act like research and anecdote are two paths to the same end. They're not. Not even close. Anecdote stops a tenth of the way, at which point you have to jump on the research track to get to a conclusive ending.

It's no secret that research can be biased and data can be manipuated. Even with good data, you have a risk for type I and type II statistical errors. But this is the exception, not the rule. On the whole, research gives us infinitely more reliable information than anecdote, which is fundamentally incapable of proving causal effects.

[Ulter]

It's pathetic for you to defend the drug companies by posting their spin. The problems with this drug were discovered before the Enhance study. They have hidden various data on this drug for years. This is on the liver damage discovery...

“You don’t want to have data missing,” said Dr. Bruce Psaty, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington. “When there have been adverse effects, when the benefits don’t look impressive, those are the trials that historically don’t make it to press.”

A Schering executive, when asked by a reporter about the unpublished studies, confirmed their existence.

I think you'd do better not defending the drug companies on this one. They knew about this problem BEFORE Enhance. They just have a habit of not reporting the data they collect. The study merely confirmed the real life experience. Lower cholesterol, higher incidence of CAD.

[Ulter]

As I posted, You're arguing for the sake of it. Your mental masturbation has turned into a circle jerked argument that ends up in the same place it started. You read studies and keep the idea that you're a scientist. We'll continue our discussion and exchange ideas and experiences.

[macrophage69 alpha]

Doctors are constrained by evidence based medicine, by clinical research, in the choices they have for treating a given illness. A doctor can't prescribe a treatment for which the treatment has not been approved, no matter who has anecdotal evidence that it works. To do that is malpractice. Drugs are approved based on clinical research, never anecdote..

:roflmao:

dont insult peoples intelligence and then post this kind of nonsense. Doctors prescribe drug all the time for conditions for which they have not been approved. Off label prescriptions for many drugs are MORE common than approved treatment scripts.

your armchair/google perspective is sorely skewed.

[macrophage69 alpha]

That's called the placebo effect. And it's an effect that the scientific method tries to negate. People don't want to know if your belief that something works has an effect (the placebo). They want to know if the treatment itself (the fasted/fed cardio) has an effect.



you go right ahead and design a double blind placebo controlled study to test that.

For the time being, lets just say that likely there are a tremendous number of individual variables that may or may not make, either fed or fasted cardio, more or less effective than another. Because given the limiting paramaters of all the studies, that really all that can be said.

though will add that, before you assume that the research (because there is "more") is in fact better, be sure to look at the journal rank and impact of that journal (its a good indicator of likely validity in the absence of full review)

[Conciliator]

It's pathetic for you to defend the drug companies by posting their spin. The problems with this drug were discovered before the Enhance study. They have hidden various data on this drug for years. This is on the liver damage discovery...

“You don’t want to have data missing,” said Dr. Bruce Psaty, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington. “When there have been adverse effects, when the benefits don’t look impressive, those are the trials that historically don’t make it to press.”

A Schering executive, when asked by a reporter about the unpublished studies, confirmed their existence.

I think you'd do better not defending the drug companies on this one. They knew about this problem BEFORE Enhance. They just have a habit of not reporting the data they collect. The study merely confirmed the real life experience. Lower cholesterol, higher incidence of CAD.This is what you call a red herring. It's a logical fallacy in which people completely change the topic. You're attacking me for defending the drug companies? Huh? No, I'm defending what actually happened against your fairy tale portrayal. The fact remains that the stuff you invented a few posts back about anecdote saving the day is unfounded garbage. You completely misrepresented what happened with the ENHANCE study. That's really lame. It's the clinical research that's providing the evidence, not anecdote. You remind me of Dr. P on BB.com, inventing things to malign DNP with. Come on now.

[Ulter]

That fallacy up there is you saying, "A doctor can't prescribe a treatment for which the treatment has not been approved, no matter who has anecdotal evidence that it works."
Which is utter nonsense.

Schering hid the data. The anecdotal evidence was beginning to surface. They tried to bury the data they had and even the data from Enhance. Read what happens in court. You're obviously not following this story very closely. And yes, I attacked you for defending them. You should be ashamed, and on a steroid board no less.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with your argument.

Now you can get back to explaining how doctors don't write off label prescriptions.

[Conciliator]

dont insult peoples intelligence and then post this kind of nonsense. Doctors prescribe drug all the time for conditions for which they have not been approved.I was completely wrong when I posted that. I got it confused with the illegality of promoting any off-label use by pharmaceutical companies. There's also the increased risk of malpractice if someone gets injured while taking a drug off-label. I admit that I what I posted was incorrect.

[Ulter]

The problem was and still is the FDA’s practice of accepting “surrogate endpoints” for drug approval. Instead of relying on ultimate outcomes — a reduction in heart attacks or strokes, for instance, or a decrease in deaths — the studies measure a drug’s effectiveness by using interim markers, such as decreasing blood pressure levels or lowering LDL cholesterol.
The researchers are looking to get approval without regard as to whether or not the drug acutally helps the patient.

[Conciliator]

That fallacy up there is you saying, "A doctor can't prescribe a treatment for which the treatment has not been approved, no matter who has anecdotal evidence that it works."
Which is utter nonsense.That's not a fallacy, that's an incorrect statement. I've admitted I was incorrect. You should man up and do the same with your story about Zetia and anecdote.

Schering hid the data. The anecdotal evidence was beginning to surface. They tried to bury the data they had and even the data from Enhance. Read what happens in court. You're obviously not following this story very closely. And yes, I attacked you for defending them. You should be ashamed, and on a steroid board no less.WTF are you talking about? I'm not defending them. I'm showing how it's bullshit for you to claim that the ENHANCE study proved some other study wrong. Or that "failsafe anecdotal evidence" prevented the drug from being sold. Or that "anecdotal evidence picked up" that Zetia doesn't work, while the clinical research didn't.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with your argument.I agree, using the ENHANCE study to try to make a claim against clinical research and in favor of anecdote wasn't very smart of you.

[Conciliator]

The problem was and still is the FDA’s practice of accepting “surrogate endpoints” for drug approval. Instead of relying on ultimate outcomes — a reduction in heart attacks or strokes, for instance, or a decrease in deaths — the studies measure a drug’s effectiveness by using interim markers, such as decreasing blood pressure levels or lowering LDL cholesterol.
The researchers are looking to get approval without regard as to whether or not the drug acutally helps the patient. What's your point? They got approval for Vytorin based on surrogate endpoints. They did a small study in a rare population (ENHANCE) and found that although the combination reduced cholesterol more than Zocor alone, it didn't statistically decrease plaque accumulation any better than Zocor alone. And now:

Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals is currently conducting three large outcomes trials with ezetimibe/simvastatin, which involve more than 20,000 high-risk patients, including the more than 10,000 patient IMPROVE-IT trial. No incremental benefit of ezetimibe/simvastatin on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality over and above that demonstrated for simvastatin has been established

[Ulter]

I didn't say Enhance proved any other study wrong. When the patients incidence of CAD is going up and they are taking a drug to help prevent it you have anecdotal evidence that the trials didn't see. I wrote in my other post #76, why that happens.
My point was this is common practice and why drugs are later found to cause problems they didn't see in the research. Anecdotally. That's the failsafe. The patients dying or getting no benefit. It's a dead giveaway the research was flawed. FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88000 and 139000 heart attacks... Avandia, may raise the risk of heart attack, and that antidepressants, the most widely prescribed drugs in America, may work no better than placebo. Banner year for the research people.

Are you trying to provoke me or something? Your type of posting gets people banned here very quickly. I let it slide because you're not as stupid as most that do that. Knock it off or you're done here.

[Conciliator]

I didn't say Enhance proved any other study wrong.Sorry, you said that Zetia was a case where the "clinical research was wrong". You said "the failsafe anecdotal evidence" prevented the drug from being sold forever.

1) What clinical research exactly "was wrong"?
2) What exactly was the "failsafe anecdote" that you're referring to?
3) Where are the anecdotal reports of "failure of the drug"?
4) What basis do you have for saying that "failure of the drug led to a new clinical trial"?
5) What exactly was it that "research [missed]" and anecdote found?

Please, answer these questions. Because I'm not seeing it.

When the patients incidence of CAD is going up and they are taking a drug to help prevent it you have anecdotal evidence that the trials didn't see.Huh? Who's anecdotal evidence looked at the incidence of CAD, with a finding that it went up? PLEASE answer this question. We'll call it #6. Honestly, I think you're completely bullshitting right now. I doubt there's any anecdotal evidence of an increased incidence of CAD with Vytorin. We know from the ENHANCE study that the combination reduces cholesterol and reduces plaque accumulation more than placebo.

Are you trying to provoke me or something? Your type of posting gets people banned here very quickly. I let it slide because you're not as stupid as most that do that. Knock it off or you're done here.Provoke you? No. I'm just asking probing questions and calling you out on things that sound like bullshit to me. Nothing personal. I'm just generally a pain in the ass with my logic and reasoning. Please answer the six questions.

Thanks.

[wags8]

That attitude seems like a strange way to make new friends. We're proud of our civil discussions here. Plus if you have to eat your own words they taste better when they're not so bitter.

[Conciliator]

That attitude seems like a strange way to make new friends.It's not a way to make friends. We're debating.

[macrophage69 alpha]

Provoke you? No. I'm just asking probing questions and calling you out on things that sound like bullshit to me. Nothing personal. I'm just generally a pain in the ass



That's just fukkenstupid. Fasted cardio is for fukkenidiots.


Unfortuantely, we see you're not a scientific thinker, so I think we're at an impasse. All I can do is recommend that you become more familiar with science and the scientific method so that you can be aware of your limitations. Right now, you're oblivious to them.



Ulter, You should be ashamed for misrepreseting

You're inventing things to help argue your point.

You're either lying or misrepresenting things

You're also either lying or misrepresenting things

[b]I think it's pathetic for you to invent the idea




You and I both know that you're talking out of your ass..
It's the ultimate in jackassery
No, it's because you're not conscious of your own limitations.



its pretty clear that you need to learn how to be civil to others and if you dont think that your remarks and condescensions are offensive then you are "sadly mistaken".

You have made a number of assertions that may be somewhat true, however since anecdotal evidence is almost always the basis for investigation or further investigation, your complete discounting of it shows that YOU dont understand how research is done.

Does anecdotal evidence have the same weight as clinicals, quite often not within the limited parameters of those clinicals, but in some cases yes. Particularly when there is a large body of anecdotal evidence. Since clinicals can be quite limited (as noted above and previously) to rely solely on them, in an area like this one (where research is rather limited both in scope and breadth) is actually rather foolish.

[Conciliator]

its pretty clear that you need to learn how to be civil to others and if you dont think that your remarks and condescensions are offensive then you are "sadly mistaken".Ulter has had his share too. I really don't think we need to get our panties in a twist.

You have made a number of assertions that may be somewhat true, however since anecdotal evidence is almost always the basis for investigation or further investigation, your complete discounting of it shows that YOU dont understand how research is done.I don't completely discount it. I've posted that anecdote provides clues that invite further research. I've said it can give you an idea about whether something works. And when it's all you've got, you interpret and act on it as best as you can.

Does anecdotal evidence have the same weight as clinicals, quite often not within the limited parameters of those clinicals, but in some cases yes. Particularly when there is a large body of anecdotal evidence. Since clinicals can be quite limited (as noted above and previously) to rely solely on them, in an area like this one (where research is rather limited both in scope and breadth) is actually rather foolish.What are you referring to when you say "in an area like this one"? The fasted/fed cardio debate? Or the Vytorin debate?

Regardless, my question is the same: where's "the large body of anecdotal evidence" that's so persuasive?

[Blut Wump]

Let's not forget that medicine grew from anecdotal evidence. Almost all traditional medicines came into use solely because of anecdotal evidence. Hints for fresh research can come from anecdotal evidence, often born of off-label use.

Research studies have their place and are essential in the development of so-called modern medicines, which seem often to be as much poisonous as beneficial, often simply because the drugs are developed in labs for patentability reasons and there is no anecdotal evidence available as to whether the developers have broken the base compound(s) or added excessive poisons.

That the safety, or lack of it, of many drugs is not known until anecdotal evidence from widespread use is available points to some short-comings of research, most especially research funded by the developer. It's difficult to know of and to control all pertinent aspects of an experiment. It's no surprise that inadequate studies are performed or that incorrect conclusions are drawn.

Please endeavour to continue to control your demeanour on here. Your insulting manner is not an accepted protocol on the board. We have a history of trying to restrict ourselves to having members who, while they might think that another holds an incomprehensible or insupportable viewpoint, are able to resist thinking that the other is lying or an idiot or, at least, able to resist posting their thought. This isn't going to change any time soon. Attack the statements not the poster.

[Ulter]

Regardless, my question is the same: where's "the large body of anecdotal evidence" that's so persuasive?

Are you saying that there are not thousands of people who have had better results with fasted state cardio? If so, you're not paying attention. There are CSCS trainers all over the country who would disagree with you.


I'm not going to post anymore about how the drug company's research pales in comparison to the real world results (anecdotal evidence) of the drugs they make. It's going in circles. On the topic of Zetia, they've hidden data. They admit they've hidden the data. I'm convinced I know what that data says. You say they were forthright in their findings. The Law Review points out that lawyers disagree with you.

The manufacturer has disputed the study's (Enhance) findings, but within weeks of the study's release a class action lawsuit has already been filed against Merck and Schering-Plough.

You don't believe it. Let's wait for the court trials and see who's right.

I'm going to concede one point here. Treatment in hospitals is 85% +/- based on "evidence based" medical practice. At least that's the number Lancet found in Europe.

However, I believe the number stated by US Congress's Office Of Technology Assessment in 1983 for what I called "day to day" medical practice in general (your office visits), "only 10% to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial" is accurate. Physicians argue, like you, that the OTA assessment isn't accurate. Again, I think it is accurate. You accuse me of lying or making these things up. I may be wrong and that could be a lie. But the lie is based on government statistics. So I'm going to roll with that, I liked the 80's.

[navalgazer]

I don't know people can do cardio on a full stomach, the only way I can stomach it (ou I made a funny) is on an empty or fasting stomach otherwise I'm sluggish and unmotivated.

Right or wrong I'm on the empty stomach side of the fence for effectiveness and personal preference.

[Conciliator]

Are you saying that there are not thousands of people who have had better results with fasted state cardio? If so, you're not paying attention. There are CSCS trainers all over the country who would disagree with you.This is a very, very weak argument. Although fed cardio hasn't been as popular since it doesn't have a history in gym lore, it's much more popular than it once was. In thanks to good reviews of the research, like Alan's, people are consuming their daily carbs around training, when partitioning is more favorable. Performance improves and catabolism is reduced. And according to the research, 24 hour fat oxidation is the same.

I'm sure there are many CSCS who feel fed cardio is better. Alan, besides being a high end trainer himself, is actually a continuing education instructor for NASM, ACE, and the NSCA.

At the end of it all, though, unless you have some actual numbers from a survey of sorts, even your anecdotal evidence is weak. And then, even if the anecdotal evidennce was strongly in favor of fasted cardio, it still doesn't prove anything, as the bias could easily be explained by gym lore and placebo.

I'm not going to post anymore about how the drug company's research pales in comparison to the real world results (anecdotal evidence) of the drugs they make. It's going in circles. On the topic of Zetia, they've hidden data. They admit they've hidden the data. I'm convinced I know what that data says. You say they were forthright in their findings. The Law Review points out that lawyers disagree with you.

The manufacturer has disputed the study's (Enhance) findings, but within weeks of the study's release a class action lawsuit has already been filed against Merck and Schering-Plough.

You don't believe it. Let's wait for the court trials and see who's right.The is another red herring. You're changing the topic again. There's no disagreement about whether or not data was hidden. This is an argument that you presented for "failsafe anecdote" vs. clinical research. The funny thing is, the missing data that ostensibly proves Zetia is unsafe is... clinical research.

Please don't try to change the topic. Please answer the six questions. If you're not going to answer them, then please just admit you went too far with all those claims.

I'm going to concede one point here. Treatment in hospitals is 85% +/- based on "evidence based" medical practice. At least that's the number Lancet found in Europe.

However, I believe the number stated by US Congress's Office Of Technology Assessment in 1983 for what I called "day to day" medical practice in general (your office visits), "only 10% to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial" is accurate. Physicians argue, like you, that the OTA assessment isn't accurate. Again, I think it is accurate. You accuse me of lying or making these things up. I may be wrong and that could be a lie. But the lie is based on government statistics. So I'm going to roll with that, I liked the 80's.Interesting numbers. Thanks for sharing those.

Also, thanks for the debate. Although it might sound otherwise, I really love a good argument. I always come away having learned more and I hope you feel the same. Sorry if I wasn't as civil as this board is used to. I'll try to keep it in check.

-Conciliator

[Blut Wump]

Clinical trials rarely, if ever, prove anything either. The most I've ever come away from reading about a clinical trial with is, "provided we didn't miss some significant variable and assuming that the variables we did select for didn't invalidate the whole test then, to a degree of statistical significance, the drug seems to be performing for some people".

Wrapping one's experimental process up in the scientific method goes a very long way towards inducing confidence in the interpretation of the results but I balk at considering any such result to be a proof. A proof is something incontrovertible. Anything less is speculation no matter how high the degree of confidence.

All any experiment can do is lend supporting evidence to a hypothesis or to provide a counter-example to the hypothesis. I find that pretty much everything outside of mathematics is best described in shades of gray rather than black and white. Clinical trials seem typically to provide both counter-examples and supporting evidence. For many drugs, despite extensive clinical trials, often a doctor can only say, "try this and see whether it works for you". That is the exact same place that anecdotal evidence typically leaves one.

There's place here for both. Dismissing a large volume of anecdotal evidence simply because it contradicts a trial might not be the best choice. At least not until one has dissected the trial to the best of one's ability.

[macrophage69 alpha]

The is another red herring. You're changing the topic again. There's no disagreement about whether or not data was hidden. This is an argument that you presented for "failsafe anecdote" vs. clinical research. The funny thing is, the missing data that ostensibly proves Zetia is unsafe is... clinical research.


whether research "exists" is irrelevant, it was not in the public domain. It was anecdotal evidence that led to the review and subsequent disclosure of the research.

there is no absolute proof of pretty much anything. There are varying levels of "proof" with varying levels of validity and applicability. Clinical research can be valuable or it can be relatively worthless. The same goes for anecdotal evidence. ALL evidence should be weighed in making judgments.

to be clear under the right circumstances anecdotal evidence can be more controlled than clinical. Especially in models where the reporter is an objective observer, where the reporter/subject is highly informed or perhaps even more so in cases where the reporter/subject completely lacks understanding of the underlying/implied result of the protocol/drug/etc.

havign not fully joined this discussion (fed/fasted) will say that there are massive issues with the whole fasted/fed state argument, but the research in high impact and ranked journals certainly leans towards fasted (within limited parameters). However, the variants of fasted and fed used in the studies is varied. IMO they certainly have not used optimal models of either, the models they use rarely reflect real world application. Also these studies generally fail to account for metabolic adaptation, most of them are not long enough to ascertain the effects over time. Which can be significantly different than acute exposure to a protocol or drug.

[Ulter]

I answered the questions you posed in various posts. You're just not reading my answers as answers. When I rephrase my answer you say I'm changing the subject. At this point I think it's beaten to death because I've run out of ways to explain my side.
Have a good weekend.

[ColdStone]

This is a very, very weak argument. Although fed cardio hasn't been as popular since it doesn't have a history in gym lore, it's much more popular than it once was. In thanks to good reviews of the research, like Alan's, people are consuming their daily carbs around training, when partitioning is more favorable. Performance improves and catabolism is reduced. And according to the research, 24 hour fat oxidation is the same.

I'm sure there are many CSCS who feel fed cardio is better. Alan, besides being a high end trainer himself, is actually a continuing education instructor for NASM, ACE, and the NSCA.

At the end of it all, though, unless you have some actual numbers from a survey of sorts, even your anecdotal evidence is weak. And then, even if the anecdotal evidennce was strongly in favor of fasted cardio, it still doesn't prove anything, as the bias could easily be explained by gym lore and placebo.
The is another red herring. You're changing the topic again. There's no disagreement about whether or not data was hidden. This is an argument that you presented for "failsafe anecdote" vs. clinical research. The funny thing is, the missing data that ostensibly proves Zetia is unsafe is... clinical research.

Please don't try to change the topic. Please answer the six questions. If you're not going to answer them, then please just admit you went too far with all those claims.
Interesting numbers. Thanks for sharing those.

Also, thanks for the debate. Although it might sound otherwise, I really love a good argument. I always come away having learned more and I hope you feel the same. Sorry if I wasn't as civil as this board is used to. I'll try to keep it in check.

-Conciliator

real deal bro, dont come to AFboard, argue with ulter and tell him he should be ashamed for anything.. this is a fight your very unlikely to win.
this is reminding me of ross' last thread

[Conciliator]

whether research "exists" is irrelevant, it was not in the public domain. It was anecdotal evidence that led to the review and subsequent disclosure of the research.I think you're confused about what happened. The "hidden" research on liver damage had been seen and evaluated by the FDA during Zetia's approval. It wasn't anecdote that did anything, as there were only a few scattered case reports. Rather, it was Alex Berenson's story in the NY Times that brought these unpublished studies to light. As he said, "Partial results of the studies, alluded to in documents on the Food and Drug Administration’s Web site, raise questions about whether Zetia can cause liver damage when used long term with other cholesterol drugs called statins."

Second, the research was never disclosed. Although a law has been passed requiring disclosure of things like this by pharma companies, it doesn't apply retroactively to the unpublished Zetia studies.

there is no absolute proof of pretty much anything. There are varying levels of "proof" with varying levels of validity and applicability. Clinical research can be valuable or it can be relatively worthless. The same goes for anecdotal evidence. ALL evidence should be weighed in making judgments.Your statement that "there is no absolute proof of pretty much anything" depends on your burden of proof. When you say "absolute" here, I think you mean a very high standard. Whether that's "without a doubt", "without a reasonable doubt", or "without substantial doubt", I don't know. A good think to keep in mind though is that burden of proof is subjective. How much evidence do you require in order believe a proposition?

Unless you were referring to burden of proof, I think you mean there are "varying levels of evidence" (for example, how evidence is ranked in evidence-based medicine). Anecdotal evidence is some of the weakest. It has limited value. I do agree, though, that all relevant evidence should be weighed.

[Conciliator]

to be clear under the right circumstances anecdotal evidence can be more controlled than clinical. Especially in models where the reporter is an objective observer, where the reporter/subject is highly informed or perhaps even more so in cases where the reporter/subject completely lacks understanding of the underlying/implied result of the protocol/drug/etc.I agree that "anecdotal evidence can be more controlled than clinical", but that's rarely the case. The overwhelming majority of anecdotal evidence is obtained with absolutely no formal consideration for the scientific method.

havign not fully joined this discussion (fed/fasted) will say that there are massive issues with the whole fasted/fed state argument, but the research in high impact and ranked journals certainly leans towards fasted (within limited parameters). However, the variants of fasted and fed used in the studies is varied. IMO they certainly have not used optimal models of either, the models they use rarely reflect real world application. Also these studies generally fail to account for metabolic adaptation, most of them are not long enough to ascertain the effects over time. Which can be significantly different than acute exposure to a protocol or drug.I agree the data is wanting.

How do you figure that "the research in high impact and ranked journals certainly leans towards fasted"? It what sense does it lean towards fasted? Do you not agree that there are now several studies showing that moderate to highly trained men show no acute difference in fat oxidation whether in a fasted or fed state?

You may have seen it, but a recent, well-controlled study (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/4/1045) just compared 6 weeks of fasted cardio done 3x/wk to 6 weeks of fed cardio done 3x/wk. In the fasted group, no adaptations were made over the six weeks that resulted in increased fat oxidation during a fed 2-hour cardio bout. They said, "Along this line, we hypothesized that training while fasting, by virtue of stimulation of fat oxidative pathways, would increase the relative contribution of fat oxidation in total energy production, for a given absolute workload and exercise duration, even in the presence of carbohydrate intake during exercise. However, neither net IMCL breakdown (Fig. 5) nor rate of total fat oxidation (Table 2) was affected by the differential dietary context of the training sessions."

[Conciliator]

I answered the questions you posed in various posts. You're just not reading my answers as answers.If you can't answer the questions because the answers don't make sense, man up and admit that all the razz about "failsafe anecdote" was unwarranted. Don't pretend like you already answered the questions and I can go find them. That's an incredibly lame retreat strategy. How's this, why don't you just answer question #6. You obviously haven't done that yet.
When I rephrase my answer you say I'm changing the subject.Rephrase? Here (http://www.afboard.com/forum/anabolic-discussion/22585-old-heated-debate-cardio-empty-stomach-morning-vs-full-stomach-anytime-long-read-2.html#post243474), you argue I'm defending the drug companies and start talking about hidden studies on liver damage. I said you were changing the subject, and you were. And then here (http://www.afboard.com/forum/anabolic-discussion/22585-old-heated-debate-cardio-empty-stomach-morning-vs-full-stomach-anytime-long-read-2.html#post243607), you do it again, talking about hidden data. That doesn't have anything to do with the answers to my questions about our initial discussion on the ENHANCE study. You're not answering any questions. You're ignoring them.
At this point I think it's beaten to death because I've run out of ways to explain my side.
Have a good weekend.You haven't explained anything. You've made claims that don't coincide with the story, which I've summarized here (http://www.afboard.com/forum/anabolic-discussion/22585-old-heated-debate-cardio-empty-stomach-morning-vs-full-stomach-anytime-long-read-2.html#post243350) and here (http://www.afboard.com/forum/anabolic-discussion/22585-old-heated-debate-cardio-empty-stomach-morning-vs-full-stomach-anytime-long-read-2.html#post243806). My questions (http://www.afboard.com/forum/anabolic-discussion/22585-old-heated-debate-cardio-empty-stomach-morning-vs-full-stomach-anytime-long-read-2.html#post243499) are about those claims. You're just changing the topic and trying to evade the questions, which I doubt you can answer. If you've already answered them (which you haven't) you could easily provide some links. It seems to me you're being disingenuous with this, which is regrettable.

[Conciliator]

real deal bro, dont come to AFboard, argue with ulter and tell him he should be ashamed for anything.. this is a fight your very unlikely to win.I'd read the thread first, lol.

He should be ashamed for misrepresenting what happened with Zetia and the ENCHANCE study. My questions are mostly about that. He refuses to answer them. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll try to answer just question 6, like I asked.

[Blut Wump]

Does the full text give indications as to their eating schedule in the hours pre- and post-exercise?

I can't take anything relevant from that abstract other than that the fasted group were in an improved fat-burning state after the exercise.

The 65% carb intake might make the study of little relevance to many on here. It also seems that both groups were being fed during the exercise. Maybe that's clarified in the full text.

[Conciliator]

Does the full text give indications as to their eating schedule in the hours pre- and post-exercise?During the training protocol, the fasted subjects were overnight-fasted. The fed subjects had a carb rich breakfast 90 min before each training session and maltodextrin during training at a rate of 1g/kg/hr. Training duration was from 1 to 2 hours, 3x/wk.

During the testing/experimental protocol, subjects fasted overnight for 11 hours and then had a carb rich breakfast containing 722 Cal at 85% C, 4% F, 11% P. They then rested for 2 hours after which they cycled for 2 hours. They received maltodextrin during training at a rate of 1g/kg/hr.

The purpose of the study was to measure adaptations to fasted cardio and then see if they resulted in performance improvements during fed cardio, similar to preparing for an endurance event. Besides performance, the researchers also measured substrate utilization and gene expression.

I can't take anything relevant from that abstract other than that the fasted group were in an improved fat-burning state after the exercise.

The 65% carb intake might make the study of little relevance to many on here. It also seems that both groups were being fed during the exercise. Maybe that's clarified in the full text.This paper showed that the fasted cardio upregulated FFA transporter proteins. You'd probably see the same thing with a low carb diet. The surprise, though, is that these adaptations didn't translate into increased fat utilization.

The paper certainly isn't comparing the two protocols the way we'd like to see. The final testing protocol was done in a fed state, the subjects weren't dieting, and body composition was not an end point. What it does provide is long term evidence against the claim of improved fat oxidation. Several acute studies show that fasted cardio in trained men doesn't result in improved fat oxidation. We now have a longer term study that found that in a fed state, there's still no increase in fat oxidation after weeks of fasted cardio. Of course, we'd like to see the two protocols compared long term, during caloric restriction, and with body-composition end points.

[Blut Wump]

Thanks.

There is one further aspect to the eating times and that's how long after exercise during the fasting phase the group waited before eating. A common recommendation when doing am cardio is to avoid carbs for a couple of hours or so after the exercise to take advantage of the fat-burning state and that the real fat-loss benefits come after the exercise rather than during.

[Conciliator]

Thanks.

There is one further aspect to the eating times and that's how long after exercise during the fasting phase the group waited before eating. A common recommendation when doing am cardio is to avoid carbs for a couple of hours or so after the exercise to take advantage of the fat-burning state and that the real fat-loss benefits come after the exercise rather than during.All I see is that "Subjects trained three times weekly (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) between 7 and 12 AM". And then "Monday to Friday, a supervised lunch was served". Doesn't say what time lunch was at.

[macrophage69 alpha]

The paper certainly isn't comparing the two protocols the way we'd like to see. The final testing protocol was done in a fed state, the subjects weren't dieting, and body composition was not an end point. What it does provide is long term evidence against the claim of improved fat oxidation. Several acute studies show that fasted cardio in trained men doesn't result in improved fat oxidation. We now have a longer term study that found that in a fed state, there's still no increase in fat oxidation after weeks of fasted cardio. Of course, we'd like to see the two protocols compared long term, during caloric restriction, and with body-composition end points.

the study is not at all reflective of fasted cardio. It does not provide evidence against improved fat oxidation because it does not test fasted cardio. this study is essentially IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. gauging fed/fed vs. fasted/fed completely side steps the impact of training WHILE fasted as was done here.




J Physiol. 2004 Dec 15;561(Pt 3):871-82. Epub 2004 Oct 21. Links
The combined effects of exercise and food intake on adipose tissue and splanchnic metabolism.Enevoldsen LH, Simonsen L, Macdonald IA, Bülow J.
Department of Clinical Physiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark.

Seven young, healthy male subjects were each studied in two separate experiments. (1) Subjects exercised for 60 min at 55% of peak oxygen consumption in the fasted state ending 30 min before a meal (60% of energy as carbohydrate, and 20% of energy as lipid and protein each) comprising 25% of the total daily energy intake, and were then studied for another 150 min postprandially during rest (E-->M). (2) One hour after a similar meal, subjects exercised for 60 min and were then studied for another 180 min postexercise during rest (M-->E). Regional adipose tissue and splanchnic tissue metabolism were measured by Fick's Principle. Food intake before exercise reduced whole-body lipid combustion during exercise to about 50% of the combustion rate found during exercise in the fasted state. The increase in subcutaneous, abdominal adipose tissue lipolysis during exercise was not influenced by preexercise food intake, while the fatty acid mobilization was increased by only 1.5-fold during postprandial exercise compared to a fourfold increase during exercise in the fasted state. During exercise, catecholamine concentrations increased similarly in the fasted and the postprandial state, while the insulin concentration was twofold higher postprandially. These results indicate that the increase in catecholamine concentrations during exercise is a more important determinant of the adipose tissue lipolytic rate than the decrease in insulin concentration. Furthermore, food intake either 30 min after or 1 h before exercise prevents the postexercise increase in adipose tissue glycerol and fatty acid release which normally takes place in fasting subjects at least up to 2.5 h postprandially. Postprandial exercise led to a faster increase in postprandial lipaemia. This could not be accounted for by changes in the regional splanchnic tissue or adipose tissue triacylglycerol metabolism. Exercise was able to increase hepatic glucose production irrespective of food intake before exercise. It is concluded that exercise performed in the fasted state shortly before a meal leads to a more favourable lipid metabolism during and after exercise than exercise performed shortly after a meal.

[Ulter]

If you can't answer the questions because the answers don't make sense, man up and admit that all the razz about "failsafe anecdote" was unwarranted. Don't pretend like you already answered the questions and I can go find them. That's an incredibly lame retreat strategy. How's this, why don't you just answer question #6. You obviously haven't done that yet.

I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding perfectly worded English. Don't come back to me with garbage like this simply because you can't understand something so basic.

If research on a drug is flawed the flaw will show up in the patients using the drug. That means of course that even though the approval research is flawed the anecdotal evidence is failsafe because it eventually will show up in the real world every time. Is that so difficult that I have to reword it for you THREE TIMES? Don't tell me I didn't explain it when the problem is that your mind is too weak to grab this simple principal. And you call ME pathetic. An 8 year old could understand that. You post studies that are irrelevant, you make arguments about of thin air and then when you're incapable of understanding the simplest principals you attack the person trying to explain it to you. Take your ego somewhere else.

[Conciliator]

If research on a drug is flawed the flaw will show up in the patients using the drug. That means of course that even though the approval research is flawed the anecdotal evidence is failsafe because it eventually will show up in the real world every time.As I've asked before, what research on Zetia are you claiming was "flawed" and "wrong"? Was it the Zetia approval studies? Was it the Vytorin approval study? Was it the unpublished studies on liver damage? Was it the ENHANCE study? WHICH STUDY WAS WRONG, AND WHY? YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED THAT.

As I've asked before, what "failure of the drug led to a new clinical trial"? HOW DID THE DRUG FAIL TO LIVE UP TO THE RESEARCH? WHAT CLINICAL TRIAL ARE YOU CLAIMING WAS SPURRED BY ANECDOTE? YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS.

Finally, you make the crazy claim that "when the patients incidence of CAD is going up and they are taking a drug to help prevent it you have anecdotal evidence that the trials didn't see". Please, PLEASE, tell me WHAT ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ON ZETIA EVER SHOWED ANYTHING ABOUT THE INCIDENCE RATES OF CAD??? YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED THIS QUESTION.

Is that so difficult that I have to reword it for you THREE TIMES? Don't tell me I didn't explain it when the problem is that your mind is too weak to grab this simple principal.You're again changing the topic, talking generally instead of on the specifics of Zetia. YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOVE, ANYWHERE.

Is all you have excuses and lame retreat strategies or ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS???

Un-freaking-believable.

[Ulter]

They tracked the drug's performance. All drug companies do that. It is my belief that the courts will find that they had data from their tracking that showed that the incidence of CAD continued unaffected by their drug. Because they use surrogate rather than final outcome to get approval they could not have known this would happen THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE APPROVAL RESEARCH WRONG. Why do you think they didn't do Enhance in the US? I believe it will come out in the court trial. This is what I posted before and now again. The problem is the way the FDA allows approval before the final outcome. (Note: it is my belief that lipid profiles are an inaccurate way to predict future CAD and the Chol marker was a huge mistake to gain approval)
You're asking me for data that Schering has been and continues to withhold? I don't have that data, only they do. I am giving my opinion based on what lawyers familar with this case are saying. WAIT FOR THE TRIALS. I'm not retreating. I'm just sick of posting the same thing over and over until you understand. I don't live for this thread like you seem to. I would like to move on because this is all so inconsequential to ANYTHING on this board. What does matter, at least somewhat, is the original debate. You have spent DAYS on this digression and it's pointless. You make riduculous posts about physicians not using drugs off label, which you recanted, and now you're posting studies with no relevance to the original topic. You now have more posts about Zetia than you do the topic. If you want to argue the topic do so. Anything else and I'm closing the thread.

[Blut Wump]

Sorry Conciliator but, while you might be enjoying this tangent on the FDA's drug-approval process, it is merely tedious to those trying to follow a thread on fasted cardio. It's that rather than your relentless pursuit of the ultimate truth which is likely to get the thread closed.

You have a bee in your bonnet about a few points here that are utterly irrelevant to the thread. Is there some deeper point you're trying to make beyond your lack of faith in anecdotal evidence and your trust in trials? At this stage we'd typically have cleaned up the thread and asked the participants to take the discussion to PMs. Continuing with this wild tangent is disrespectful to the poster of the thread.

[macrophage69 alpha]

The study I posted has little direct relevance, which I explained after posting it. The reason I included it is because it's one of the latest studies comparing the two protocols and it's finally a long term study. The results coincide with acute data in trained men showing that fasted cardio results in no greater fat oxidation compared to fed cardio.



not of little direct relevance, its IRRELEVANT. Its not fasted cardio if you consume carbohydrates during training. What you posted is a FLAWED study, such a design is either purposefully flawed or shows a high level of incompetence on the part of the researchers.

since consumption of carbohydrates during training abrogates the insulin suppression of the fasted state and negatively impacts catecholamine release and fat oxidation during training. Something that is well established and competent researchers would have considered in study design.


contrary to your assertion, it does not compare the two protocols (fed vs. fasted) since the very study parameters themselves require feeding during the exercise. And they do not agree with the acute research published in highly ranked high impact journals, like the study from the journal of physiology, posted above.

[navalgazer]

wow, ya'll are still going at it huh?

I think everyone could agree that if you have a hard time bringing yourself to do cardio getting to do it at anytime is better than not doing it at all.

[anabolic24/7]

wow, ya'll are still going at it huh?

I think everyone could agree that if you have a hard time bringing yourself to do cardio getting to do it at anytime is better than not doing it at all.

Haven't you noticed, that's not the point anymore.

:lock:

[Ulter]

Haven't you noticed, that's not the point anymore.

:lock:

As I posted, that will be the point going forward.

[Hidngod]

While I am certainly no expert on any of this, I would like to say thank you to every one involved.
I've learned a ton, just from having to become intimate with my thesaurus.
I've learned not to put 100% trust in studies, because I can't discern what makes them valid, or relevant to my needs. I am thankful to the interwebs for saving my life, 'cause the Avandia probably would have killed me if I hadn't looked it up.

There was one point I was unsure of in one of Macros posts.


J Physiol. 2004 Dec 15;561(Pt 3):871-82. Epub 2004 Oct 21. Links
The combined effects of exercise and food intake on adipose tissue and splanchnic metabolism.Enevoldsen LH, Simonsen L, Macdonald IA, Bülow J.
Department of Clinical Physiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark.

Seven young, healthy male subjects were each studied in two separate experiments. (1) Subjects exercised for 60 min at 55% of peak oxygen consumption in the fasted state ending 30 min before a meal (60% of energy as carbohydrate, and 20% of energy as lipid and protein each) comprising 25% of the total daily energy intake, and were then studied for another 150 min postprandially during rest (E-->M). (2) One hour after a similar meal, subjects exercised for 60 min and were then studied for another 180 min postexercise during rest (M-->E). Regional adipose tissue and splanchnic tissue metabolism were measured by Fick's Principle. Food intake before exercise reduced whole-body lipid combustion during exercise to about 50% of the combustion rate found during exercise in the fasted state. The increase in subcutaneous, abdominal adipose tissue lipolysis during exercise was not influenced by preexercise food intake, while the fatty acid mobilization was increased by only 1.5-fold during postprandial exercise compared to a fourfold increase during exercise in the fasted state. During exercise, catecholamine concentrations increased similarly in the fasted and the postprandial state, while the insulin concentration was twofold higher postprandially. These results indicate that the increase in catecholamine concentrations during exercise is a more important determinant of the adipose tissue lipolytic rate than the decrease in insulin concentration. Furthermore, food intake either 30 min after or 1 h before exercise prevents the postexercise increase in adipose tissue glycerol and fatty acid release which normally takes place in fasting subjects at least up to 2.5 h postprandially. Postprandial exercise led to a faster increase in postprandial lipaemia. This could not be accounted for by changes in the regional splanchnic tissue or adipose tissue triacylglycerol metabolism. Exercise was able to increase hepatic glucose production irrespective of food intake before exercise. It is concluded that exercise performed in the fasted state shortly before a meal leads to a more favourable lipid metabolism during and after exercise than exercise performed shortly after a meal.
How could one at home guesstimate their own perormance at this level (55% of peak Oxygen consumption). Heart rate?
Am I to understand that after fasted cardio, eg. riding my bike for 50 mins to work, I should wait to eat for at least 2.5 hrs?
If I did wait that long, should I assume that this is the optimum macros for that breakfast?

[matt1990]

lol it took me about 45 minutes to read all of this...its strayed away from its original point of view and perspective, meanign its gone way off topic, and turned into a heated debate. Were it seems to have turned into who is right and who is wrong, rather then a general discussion.

But none the less, good information here lol. AF hall of fame maybe lol. iF weeded out a bit and possibly edit for language lol.

Matt~

[Blut Wump]

While I am certainly no expert on any of this, I would like to say thank you to every one involved.
I've learned a ton, just from having to become intimate with my thesaurus.
I've learned not to put 100% trust in studies, because I can't discern what makes them valid, or relevant to my needs. I am thankful to the interwebs for saving my life, 'cause the Avandia probably would have killed me if I hadn't looked it up.

There was one point I was unsure of in one of Macros posts.


How could one at home guesstimate their own perormance at this level (55% of peak Oxygen consumption). Heart rate?
Am I to understand that after fasted cardio, eg. riding my bike for 50 mins to work, I should wait to eat for at least 2.5 hrs?
If I did wait that long, should I assume that this is the optimum macros for that breakfast?You get a feel for your exertion level after a while. You can get cheap and cheerful yet "good enough" heart-rate monitors. Once you have a feel for your exertion-level, though, you'll junk it in a corner.

I think you can get away with protein and fat, so you don't have to starve yourself.

[Hidngod]

You get a feel for your exertion level after a while. You can get cheap and cheerful yet "good enough" heart-rate monitors. Once you have a feel for your exertion-level, though, you'll junk it in a corner.

I think you can get away with protein and fat, so you don't have to starve yourself.
Thanks.

I have a HR moniter, so I'd judge with that. I was wondering if it's equatable to the Peak Oxygen Consumption.
I've been taking just 1% cottage cheese for breakfast, usually about 30 mins after the end of my ride.

[macrophage69 alpha]

as a note- the use of insulin modulators (glucorell/sesapure), stimulants (EC/SYMC[thermorexin and cardio breeze]/SYC/NYC/etc.), glucose clearance agents (EGCG/biotin/etc.), modulators or agonist of pparalpha (sesapure/alcar/fish oil/egcg/glucorell) can significantly impact both fasted and fed cardio. Also there are many variants of the fed and semi-fasted state, low dose fructose and bcaa as a semi-fasted state for example, that may have very different results that predictive clinical models suggest.

[J. Adams]

closed.

You have a bee in your bonnet about a few points here that are utterly irrelevant to the thread.


Pretty much sums up over half of his posts.

[Hidngod]

I think his point is that it's getting away from the main point of the thread.
You could take it to PMs until a conclusion is reached, or start another thread while this one continues in the original vein.

[Conciliator]

I think his point is that it's getting away from the main point of the thread.
You could take it to PMs until a conclusion is reached, or start another thread while this one continues in the original vein.I have no problem with moving our discussion to another thread.

I have a huge problem with my posts being censored.

[Ulter]

Did you miss this part of my post?

You make riduculous posts about physicians not using drugs off label, which you recanted, and now you're posting studies with no relevance to the original topic. You now have more posts about Zetia than you do the topic. If you want to argue the topic do so. Anything else and I'm closing the thread.

That didn't stop you though did it? I flat out told you to stick the topic because the digression was now larger than the thread itself. Did you follow my directions? No. So don't come back surprised that your insubordination was deleted. I'm done with you and your attitude. You're account is next.

[HULK1550]

i didnt read any of this except the last few posts, but i will say that if you absolutely need to wake up and do your cardio early to get in shape, you are messing up badly somewhere else.

[Ulter]

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting you HAVE to do cardio at all. A couple weeks ago, when this thread started, Conciliator said he can get to 6% with NO cardio.
The discussion is about if you're going to do it what's the best way.

Nubian's Ex was a top competitor and NEVER did cardio. He looks pretty lean there. :)

http://www.anabolicfitness.net/images/gaphenom.jpg

He did use Glucorell/YES and was very happy with his results as I remember.

[Conciliator]

Did you miss this part of my post?

You make riduculous posts about physicians not using drugs off label, which you recanted, and now you're posting studies with no relevance to the original topic. You now have more posts about Zetia than you do the topic. If you want to argue the topic do so. Anything else and I'm closing the thread.

That didn't stop you though did it? I flat out told you to stick the topic because the digression was now larger than the thread itself. Did you follow my directions? No. So don't come back surprised that your insubordination was deleted.You never said anything about censorship, you just talked about closing the thread, which I was fine with.

Anyway, to keep the thread on topic, I've moved our discussion to this thread: http://www.afboard.com/forum/anabolic-discussion/23054-ulters-claims-about-anecdote-zetia.html

Sorry for the inconvenience to anyone who didn't want to read our tangent.

[Conciliator]

He did use Glucorell/YES and was very happy with his results as I remember.I notice that when I hover over Glucorell, it says "Glucorell R helps shuttle carbohydrates into your muscle cells instead of your fat cells by increasing insulin sensitivity and the uptake of glucose." I haven't looked into the research on ALA all that extensively, but I know it's been shown to increase insulin sensitivity not just in muscle, but fat as well. How does it shuttle carbs into muscle cells instead of fat, when it's also been shown to elevate glucose uptake into adipocytes?

[MR. BMJ]

I notice that when I hover over Glucorell, it says "Glucorell R helps shuttle carbohydrates into your muscle cells instead of your fat cells by increasing insulin sensitivity and the uptake of glucose." I haven't looked into the research on ALA all that extensively, but I know it's been shown to increase insulin sensitivity not just in muscle, but fat as well. How does it shuttle carbs into muscle cells instead of fat, when it's also been shown to elevate glucose uptake into adipocytes?

This too might warrant a whole new thread on it's own. In the past, these threads on this topic, regarding r-ALA, have always been a flame fest, so let's not 1.) Get the cardio thread off track. 2.) maybe just start a new thread on this topic of r-ALA. 3.) Get our tempers out of control.

BMJ
:bmj:

[Conciliator]

This too might warrant a whole new thread on it's own. In the past, these threads on this topic, regarding r-ALA, have always been a flame fest, so let's not 1.) Get the cardio thread off track. 2.) maybe just start a new thread on this topic of r-ALA. 3.) Get our tempers out of control.

BMJ
:bmj:I probably would have started a new thread, but I just discovered that the thread I started on Ulter's claims about Zetia was promptly deleted for no reason. I'm confident it was because my criticism revealed the weakness of Ulter's justification for those claims.

Since this is how the forum is apparently run, I want nothing more to do with it. The censorship is truly deplorable. When moderators abuse power to prevent people from holding them accountable for what they say, it's time to leave.

[A L]

it's time to leave.

Good. It was a conspiricy against you the entire time anyway. We all told Ulter to delete and modify your postings so you would get upset and leave.

MODS ARE GODS.... bwaaaahhhahaaaaaa

:grin:

[Ulter]

I answered you again in a PM as was suggested earlier today. You're much more interested in grandstanding on this board than any discussion. That's over. You will continue to see censorship on this board any time a member feels they are above our rules of civility, as you continue to show that you feel you are.

I think I'm getting it. Your digression is due to Macro blowing your cardio argument out of the water. So you're sticking to the digression instead of addressing his points.

[MR. BMJ]

In all respect, I know the thread went different directions, and 2 different viewpoints are taken for the Zetia topic, but I think you have a lot to offer here at this board Conciliator. I really mean that, i've read a TON of your posts this past year at various boards. Maybe instead of leaving, the whole Zetia topic can be dropped for awhile (or for good...lol) and we all can still collaborate on topics.

As for thread deletions, it really isn't a trend at this board, like I stated to you in a PM, I can probably count on 1 hand, 2 at most, on how many times that has actually ever happened here.

I know that some members may think negatively of Conciliator, if so, all we ask is that you continue to treat him wiith equal respect as any other member, if he decides to stay and frequent the board here at AF.

It's important to note that controversial topics like this arise, and things will get out of hand even on the best boards, so nobody is perfect here on this stuff. I think if Conciliator stays, things can still remain positive.....let's just skip the whole Zetia topic though;)

BMJ
:bmj:

[wags8]

Good. It was a conspiricy against you the entire time anyway. We all told Ulter to delete and modify your postings so you would get upset and leave.

MODS ARE GODS.... bwaaaahhhahaaaaaa

:grin:

I agree. They'll love him at EF. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. Quote from Granny wags.

[Ulter]

BMJ, nothing he posted is not still on the thread. What was deleted was his posting of it for the THIRD TIME. And then when he put up a thread in flames posting it all a FOURTH time. Nothing was censored.

[juicy]

So, umm, which time is best for cardio?

[Sarge]

FWIW, morning cardio on empty helped me achieve my leanest state so far in this lifetime.

[SBT]

So, umm, which time is best for cardio?

I agree to both extents... I think to get lean its more about causing a caloric deficit which can be done by food, training, and/or cardio.

I am only doing 30 min right now 5 days a week (as I've done my whole prep) sometimes adding in 15 minutes if I felt like hitting the step mill after my 30 minute spin class and I am the leanest that I have even been.

And 9/10 that cardio is done POST workout, or after I have eaten a meal in the morning.

[J. Adams]

I'm just not a big fan of doing cardio right after eating. It makes me really queasy. I need to eat at least 3hrs before if its a solid meal.

[BigJimCalhoun]

So, umm, which time is best for cardio?
I am also confused. I think I asked that once already, maybe in this thread, maybe another and the answer given to me was, "yes", for what that is worth.

[SBT]

I am also confused. I think I asked that once already, maybe in this thread, maybe another and the answer given to me was, "yes", for what that is worth.
Think it all is DIFFERENT for each and every person...

[SBT]

So like Jaleena said probably the time you WILL get it done is optimal, LOL!