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?

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.

	ASS Nelson Montana

	Glucorell Glucorell R helps shuttle carbohydrates into your muscle cells instead of your fat cells by increasing insulin sensitivity and the uptake of glucose.

[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

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

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

The relevant parts of the cardio debate... - Topic Powered by Infopop

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!!!

	Glucorell Glucorell R helps shuttle carbohydrates into your muscle cells instead of your fat cells by increasing insulin sensitivity and the uptake of glucose.

[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

[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

[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.

	Glucorell Glucorell R helps shuttle carbohydrates into your muscle cells instead of your fat cells by increasing insulin sensitivity and the uptake of glucose.

[proteinfiend]

Originally Posted by PDOGGY

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.

	ASS Nelson Montana

[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.

	ASS Nelson Montana

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[BigJimCalhoun]

Originally Posted by nychris

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

I am a little slower than most - did I miss the cliff notes?

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

Thank you