PDA

View Full Version : Question On Morning Cardio..........



Tryska
09-16-2002, 04:49 AM
and yes...it's a training title but it's a nutrtion question. haha tricky!

anyways....i was thinking......you know how the whole idea behind cardio on an empty stomach is that you will get into metabolizing fat for energy quicker, because there's no sugar in the way?


well......wouldn't eating a high fat, med protein, low or no carb meal beforehand help wiht that goal, as it already primes your body to be metabolizing fat during that time?

YatesNightBlade
09-16-2002, 05:53 AM
not really. At the end of the day it's still food and your bodies gonna use it for fuel.

Tryska
09-16-2002, 07:32 AM
so then there's really no point to cardio on an empty stomach is there?

YatesNightBlade
09-16-2002, 08:03 AM
Yes, because your body must find an alternative to whats NOT in it's stomach. ie fat breakdown.

Tryska
09-16-2002, 08:08 AM
hmmm.

but here's my theory:

what you aim for is lipid breakdown right, with cardio on an empty stomach? so if you eat..like soem eggs or something, nothing major, before you workout, the enzymes (?) necessary to break down the lipids, are already there.....so you can kinda bypass or minimize that 20 minutes of glycogen burning, before you actually get to teh fat-burning part.

basically, wouldn't it make the switch to fat-burning easier, as you've already got these metabolizers floating around in your system?

like the basic premise behind a keto?

YatesNightBlade
09-16-2002, 08:13 AM
I think your body will just convert the protein to glucose to replace lost glycogen. no ????

Tryska
09-16-2002, 08:14 AM
yeah...perhaps. i was thinking about that part too. it prolly would.

so basically it would have to be plain fat.

like a stick of butter or something. *lol*

YatesNightBlade
09-16-2002, 08:17 AM
wouldn't that have the same effect ??

ElPietro
09-16-2002, 08:17 AM
Just bring a water bottle filled with veg oil then. :D

Tryska
09-16-2002, 08:21 AM
same effect?

eating plain fat, as opposed to fat and protein?

i think the protein would prolly make a valiant attemtp to convert to glycogen, but if it were plain fat....then the lipid lipases needed to break the fat down to energy, would already be present, and then when the cardio comes in to play, i would think your body would be smart enough to use those lipases to break down extra energy as well, coming from fat stores, as it's more conveninet then going back to burning sugar.


whether you already need to be glycogen depleted or not, is a question tho.

(this was soemthing i woke up thinking about....so it's a sleep-hazed theory)

YatesNightBlade
09-16-2002, 08:23 AM
Where does Gycerine come into this ???

Tryska
09-16-2002, 08:24 AM
glycerine?

Ritzol
09-16-2002, 10:12 AM
I read an article on this awhile back somewhere. I don't remember the nitty gritty details, because it's over my head anywayz. But basically, the jist of it was it doesn't matter whether you do it in the morning, or any other time of the day.

Tryska
09-16-2002, 10:14 AM
*bump for The Greaseman or Chigs*

:cool: :cool:

Pup
09-16-2002, 10:42 AM
Interesting point T...but two things one must consider...if its a fat/protein source, the protein is going to be converted to glycogen, as my boi yates has already pointed out....now to the strictly fat idea...now i know that large fat molecules bypass the liver and head strait to the hepatic vein via the heart, but i'm not sure if that has any effects on blood glucose or triglyceride levels...oh chigsy!

raniali
09-16-2002, 10:44 AM
Personally - I think that morning cardio on an empty stomach is the way to go. It has always been extremely effective for me altough it sucks becuz I am not much of a morning person. If you eat anything prior to cardio - ur body is shuttling resources to digestion and would likely use anything recently ingested for fuel first. Interesting theory, though - if you find any literature, let us know.

Tryska
09-16-2002, 10:44 AM
right...we're tossing protein/fat out of the window, because of glycogen conversion.

so let's say...that 1st thing in the morning meal..is oh..2 tbsps of Udos. that's about 220 cals right there. (gives your tummy soemthing to not rumble on, basically)

Paul Stagg
09-16-2002, 10:57 AM
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter much.

Anecdotally, people swear by cardio in the morning on an empty stomach. I can see the logic in that, but can also see how it may not be protein sparing - you might just burn off a boatload of muscle along with some fat.

Personally, I think it more important to eat something after having not eaten for 8+ hours than get on a treadmill first. Of course, I'm not a competitive bodybuilder looking to drop that last little itty bit of fat, either.

Shao-LiN
09-16-2002, 11:01 AM
I read an article on this awhile back somewhere. I don't remember the nitty gritty details, because it's over my head anywayz. But basically, the jist of it was it doesn't matter whether you do it in the morning, or any other time of the day.

You're right. The reason why most suggest to do it in the morning is because your stomach is already emptied, hopefully and you can easily do cardio right before you eat breakfast.

Tryska
09-16-2002, 11:04 AM
keep in mind...i don't actually do cardio on an empty stomach. as i agree with you paul, and what matters most to me, is moving as opposed to not moving. (that seems the best bet for fat-loss, imo), however, this is theory for theory's sake.

so the literal answers aren't really helping much y'all.

Maki Riddington
09-16-2002, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Tryska
hmmm.

but here's my theory:

what you aim for is lipid breakdown right, with cardio on an empty stomach? so if you eat..like soem eggs or something, nothing major, before you workout, the enzymes (?) necessary to break down the lipids, are already there.....so you can kinda bypass or minimize that 20 minutes of glycogen burning, before you actually get to teh fat-burning part.

basically, wouldn't it make the switch to fat-burning easier, as you've already got these metabolizers floating around in your system?

like the basic premise behind a keto?

*** The second part of my interview with Lyle M touches on this subject. I could give my take on this but I would probably give away his answer or some of it because I don't agree with everything he says.

PowerManDL
09-16-2002, 11:45 AM
My take is this: Yes, you'll burn up fat, but with empty glycogen stores, you're going to burn muscle up too.

Chigs did post something neat from Lyle about doing intervals first to mobilize fat, then doing endurance to metabolize it; he was saying to do this in the morning on an empty stomach. I can't remember if he touched on it or not, but since intervals are anaerobic and thusly glycogen fueled, you'd need some way around that.

Otherwise, I think I'd rather keep my glycogen stores full and do intervals when its more comfortable.

Then again, I'm partial to intervals and anaerobic work in general. Not to mention eating.

Blood&Iron
09-16-2002, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL

Chigs did post something neat from Lyle about doing intervals first to mobilize fat, then doing endurance to metabolize it; he was saying to do this in the morning on an empty stomach. I can't remember if he touched on it or not, but since intervals are anaerobic and thusly glycogen fueled, you'd need some way around that.

Nope. Lyle just says the intervals will really, really suck. Of course, unless you're on a keto or something, you'll still have plenty of muscle glycogen. Liver glycogen will be depleted, though, by the overnight fast.


If you follow Lyle's plan you're supposed to do it on a completely empty stomach, and take 1-3g l-tyrosine, and some caffeine several hours prior to give you a little kick(ephedrine will interfere with fat mobilization) He's said it's just a theory of his, and sorta was asking for guinea pigs on his board to try the idea out. Dunno if any of the people who've tried it have told him how it worked out. I'll probalby give it a go at some point myself.

PowerManDL
09-16-2002, 03:53 PM
It does sound interesting, for sure.

Even so, I'm not a big fan of anything that's going to trade off LBM for fat loss. That means pre-food cardio in the morning.

I'm the intervals advocate, and always will be.

The_Chicken_Daddy
09-16-2002, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Of course, I'm not a competitive bodybuilder looking to drop that last little itty bit of fat, either.

I think that may just be the deciding factor. ie unless you're trying to get rid of stubborn body fat or get right down to minimal body fat (against your body's wishes) then the difference may not be that significant for fat loss (but may be for muscle loss.) Maybe.

Marcel
09-16-2002, 04:53 PM
Damnit Chigs! I was gonna quote that exact line and respond similarly. Oh well. Agreed. :dj:

But like Tryska says for theories sake I would think that if fat was eaten only prior to first thing in the morn cardio then perhaps that would be best for fat-loss.

Tryska
09-16-2002, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy


I think that may just be the deciding factor. ie unless you're trying to get rid of stubborn body fat or get right down to minimal body fat (against your body's wishes) then the difference may not be that significant for fat loss (but may be for muscle loss.) Maybe.

is this in responmse to my theory or lyle's?

Tryska
09-16-2002, 07:15 PM
and btw, i would love to find studies that would help me figure this out, but considering general society's fear of dietary fat it is hard to find experiments on eating fat, and burning fat, together.

(that arne;t liek the basic is a low-carb diet good, kind of studies.)

as many smart college-people as we have on this board, how come we don't have our own research think tank?

Pup
09-16-2002, 09:12 PM
Because no university would ever fund a study on ketogenic diets...i have a 200 level nutrition class which preaches the RDA, and all that 10% protein bullshit :swear:

Blood&Iron
09-16-2002, 10:47 PM
There have been quite a few relevant studies on ketogenic diets. And I would bet there are others(on cardio in a fasted-state perhaps) that would be relevant to the cardio angle. You have to pull the conclusions from various studies, though, and sort of use the rules of inference/deduction. Very rarely is something as specific(i.e. all sorts of preconditions: ketogenic and they ate eggs before, etc) as what you are suggesting done as the applicability would be very limited.

Lyle just addressed this subject on his forum btw:
http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/dpower16/htmlos.cgi/00222.5.839055397677158637

The_Chicken_Daddy
09-17-2002, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Tryska


is this in responmse to my theory or lyle's?

Morning cardio in general.

Paul Stagg
09-17-2002, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy


I think that may just be the deciding factor. ie unless you're trying to get rid of stubborn body fat or get right down to minimal body fat (against your body's wishes) then the difference may not be that significant for fat loss (but may be for muscle loss.) Maybe.

That's why I'd eat first, and why I don't use cardio as a main fat loss tool.

The_Chicken_Daddy
09-17-2002, 07:57 AM
I didn't actually start cardio until week nine or ten of this current diet.

And about 80% of the reasoning for me to actually begin it was cause i decided i wanted to get better at sprints, and partly to see how the stubborn fat program of Lyle's would work with intervals.

Tryska
09-17-2002, 08:00 AM
so paulie, what do you use as your main fat-loss tool?

The_Chicken_Daddy
09-17-2002, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Tryska
so paulie, what do you use as your main fat-loss tool?

Eating less i imagine, since that's what he usually tells others to do.

Tryska
09-17-2002, 08:06 AM
*lol*

of course.

Paul Stagg
09-17-2002, 10:07 AM
Diet, diet, diet, diet.

I can, without too much trouble, pain, and huffing and puffing, reduce my caloric intake by 500 calories a day.

That's about a pound of fat a week.

In order to accomplish the same thing via cardio, there is entirely too much huffing, puffing, sweating, and quite possibly muscle catabolism. (500 cals a day is a LOT of cardio)

I *do* bump it up some when dieting - not to the point where I spend an hour a day, but perhaps up to 45 minutes a couple of times a week.

Meat_Head
09-17-2002, 02:06 PM
I agree with paul. Sleep puts your body in the most catabolic state of your day. Going 8 hours on what you ate before you went to bed, more than likely your body is gonna be done burning those cals and in a horomonal/cortisol chaos. Going from that straight to a catabolic areobic exercise without fueling isn't gonna burn much of that fat away, muscle would be the fuel your body would look for.

If you want to lose fat, try this:
Go ahead and do your morning cardio, but be sure you consume at least 150 cals(alot of protein) before hand, along with eca if you take it, and DEFINATELY zma or at least a vitamin e and c supp. and glutamine. That'll keep your body from going catabolic and keep you from getting sick.

Alot of people don't use supplements, but if you have the oppurtunity to get ahead, why not take it?

Tryska
09-17-2002, 02:13 PM
so if we are bringing catabolism into the mix....


if you made it a fat and protein meal, would the protein go towards preventing catabolism, and the fat towards burning for energy, and getting those enzymes going, or would the protien go towards being converted to glycogen as yates brought up.


I mean following your advice, along witht he idea, that protein will get converted to glycogen, all we'd wind up with is that protein, going towards fuel, and not helpign with catabolization at all.

you know what i mean?

PowerManDL
09-17-2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by xMeat_Headx
I agree with paul. Sleep puts your body in the most catabolic state of your day. Going 8 hours on what you ate before you went to bed, more than likely your body is gonna be done burning those cals and in a horomonal/cortisol chaos.

Why would your body be involved in anaerobic processes at night? Resting fuel for muscles comes from triglycerides, not glycogen.

Going from that straight to a catabolic areobic exercise without fueling isn't gonna burn much of that fat away, muscle would be the fuel your body would look for.

If your glycogen stores are low this is true. Assuming you don't get up and perform a squat workout in your sleep, that shouldn't be an issue.

If you want to lose fat, try this:
Go ahead and do your morning cardio, but be sure you consume at least 150 cals(alot of protein) before hand, along with eca if you take it, and DEFINATELY zma or at least a vitamin e and c supp. and glutamine. That'll keep your body from going catabolic and keep you from getting sick.

Ok I'll bite. How will ECA, ZMA, and glutamine magically refill your glycogen stores and prevent catabolism? Because 150 calories of protein sure won't.

Alot of people don't use supplements, but if you have the oppurtunity to get ahead, why not take it?

.......

I'll be nice.

Originally posted by Tina
if you made it a fat and protein meal, would the protein go towards preventing catabolism, and the fat towards burning for energy, and getting those enzymes going, or would the protien go towards being converted to glycogen as yates brought up.

My thoughts are that Yates hit it dead on.

I mean following your advice, along witht he idea, that protein will get converted to glycogen, all we'd wind up with is that protein, going towards fuel, and not helpign with catabolization at all.

I think that's exactly what would happen.

Tryska
09-17-2002, 03:08 PM
wow...i'm punctuation-impaired huh?

The_Chicken_Daddy
09-17-2002, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by xMeat_Headx
Sleep puts your body in the most catabolic state of your day.

Wait until Gino sees that.

I can kinda see what you're trying to say, but i'm sure i've read somewhere that during REM is probably the most anabolic time of day.

Meat_Head
09-17-2002, 04:19 PM
Or maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about :confused:
Well I'll do my best to sound like I know my stuff.

Most ECA's have substances in them that help your body metabolize fat for energy as opposed to cannabolizing muscle, right?

About sleep, if you have a good nutritious meal before bed sure it'll be anabolic, but if you don't, then wouldn't you be going 8+ hours on cals cannabolized from your body?

I didn't mean 150 cals of protein, I meant alot of protein and simple carbs to provide a little fuel and hopefully protein if all of it isn't broken down for energy. I guess you might as well hold of the protein till post workout?

Seems like the ZMA, EFA, Vit. C, and glutamine would help repair tissue, since that's what they're made for. I guess it wouldn't matter a whole lot wether or not you took it right before the cardio, since light cardio isn't really that catabolic.

I like supplements =)

K, you can beat me down now...

Tryska
09-17-2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by xMeat_Headx
I didn't mean 150 cals of protein, I meant alot of protein and simple carbs to provide a little fuel and hopefully protein if all of it isn't broken down for energy. I guess you might as well hold of the protein till post workout?



right, but the whole point of doing cardio on an empty stomach is so that you don't have available sugar to burn, and start mobilizing fat to burn instead.

which is why i'm wondering if cannibilization is gonna occur anyway, why not take in some fats to encourage fat metabolism a little sooner as you already have the enzymes at the ready?

Meat_Head
09-17-2002, 04:54 PM
Running is fun.

PowerManDL
09-17-2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Tryska
which is why i'm wondering if cannibilization is gonna occur anyway, why not take in some fats to encourage fat metabolism a little sooner as you already have the enzymes at the ready?

Because, if I'm not mistaken, those dietary fats are going to take precedence over mobilizing stored fats.

PowerManDL
09-17-2002, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by xMeat_Headx
About sleep, if you have a good nutritious meal before bed sure it'll be anabolic, but if you don't, then wouldn't you be going 8+ hours on cals cannabolized from your body?

Because the body isn't going to start cannibalizing muscle tissue for glycogen if it doesn't *need* glycogen.

The body at rest is aerobic, and thusly fueled by oxidation.

I didn't mean 150 cals of protein, I meant alot of protein and simple carbs to provide a little fuel and hopefully protein if all of it isn't broken down for energy. I guess you might as well hold of the protein till post workout?

That would be ideal, but would also defeat the purpose of AM cardio with no food.

Seems like the ZMA, EFA, Vit. C, and glutamine would help repair tissue, since that's what they're made for. I guess it wouldn't matter a whole lot wether or not you took it right before the cardio, since light cardio isn't really that catabolic.

Despite what the supplement companies brainwash you into thinking, those supplements can't and won't do jack for your metabolic state if the calorie requirements aren't met.

Jilla82
09-17-2002, 07:14 PM
so basically what everyone is saying is that cardio doesnt play that big of a part in fat loss? unless you do it in the morning?

Maki Riddington
09-17-2002, 09:55 PM
Just some random thoughts...............

Eating a fat meal wouldn't result in the body burning more of it's own fatty acids. So you eat some fat pre workout, which results in the body using it for energy, couple this with the free fatty acids that are being released into the bloodstream and you have way too much fat which the body won't be able to metabolize as energy. I mean, the body can only metabolize so much fat at one time. And as Powerman said, those fats that have been ingested will be first in line when it comes to exercise.
Trying to ramp up your workout to burn more fat so the body can make use of the overload of fat in your body will shift you towards using more gylcogen as it's primary fuel source which totally defeats the purpose of doing your morning cardio since your aim is to burn fat as a main source of fuel.

Really all that matters is how many calories you burn in total.
This would mean doing some sort of anaerobic exercise which Powerman touched on.

Jilla82
09-17-2002, 11:44 PM
the only thing aerobic exercises do is burn calories? no other good in the weight loss goal? so sitting on a bike for 20 min does no good then. I could just eat a open faced sandwich instead of eating a whole sandwich and save those calories right? that would have the same effect as doing 20min of cardio

Wowbagger
09-17-2002, 11:57 PM
the only thing aerobic exercises do is burn calories? no other good in the weight loss goal... I could just eat a open faced sandwich ... that would have the same effect as doing 20min of cardio

As far as fat loss, probably. There're a fair number of studies that seem to indicate that (if you do a search on this site under cardio and fat loss, you'll probably find some, I can't quote any right now).

If your sole concern is weight and bodyfat, cardio's probably a slow way to get there. Eating slightly below maintenance plus intense exercise would probably get you there faster.

If you're interested in sports like hockey, soccer, mountain biking, etc, then cardio is an important part of the training.

Jilla82
09-18-2002, 09:46 AM
ehhhh, oh well, guess ill stop getting on that bike. I always thought cardio did more then just burn those calories while you on the bike or tredmill.

Tryska
09-18-2002, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
Just some random thoughts...............

Eating a fat meal wouldn't result in the body burning more of it's own fatty acids. So you eat some fat pre workout, which results in the body using it for energy, couple this with the free fatty acids that are being released into the bloodstream and you have way too much fat which the body won't be able to metabolize as energy. I mean, the body can only metabolize so much fat at one time. And as Powerman said, those fats that have been ingested will be first in line when it comes to exercise.
Trying to ramp up your workout to burn more fat so the body can make use of the overload of fat in your body will shift you towards using more gylcogen as it's primary fuel source which totally defeats the purpose of doing your morning cardio since your aim is to burn fat as a main source of fuel.

Really all that matters is how many calories you burn in total.
This would mean doing some sort of anaerobic exercise which Powerman touched on.


excellent reasoning maki.

but what about from an afterburn perspective. (as yes, cardio does do more then just burn calories whilst you do it - granted more intense exercise produces a greater afterburn)

Yanick
09-18-2002, 10:14 AM
I suggest everyone go to the link that was posted (Lyle's discussion board). You can still read the forum even if you don't have the book.

He was asked this same exact question. Basically, at the end of the day, its the net calories that will decide whether or not you lose fat.

Unless you're doing something like HIIT, the 'after burn' is some irrelevant number, something like 10 cals total.

So unless we're talking about getting into contest shape, the timing of cardio is pretty irrelevant.

Tryska
09-18-2002, 10:32 AM
that actually was a great explanation.


and it answered another good question of mine as well.

i tried goign to the link before, but couldn't get at it i thought, as i didn't ahve that passcode business.

Avatar
09-18-2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Jilla82
the only thing aerobic exercises do is burn calories? no other good in the weight loss goal? so sitting on a bike for 20 min does no good then. I could just eat a open faced sandwich instead of eating a whole sandwich and save those calories right? that would have the same effect as doing 20min of cardio

no it depends on how you perform those 20 minutes. Higher-intensity cardio like HIIT will slightly raise your metabolism for the entire day, thus burning more calories throughout that day as opposed to low-intensity sessions.

Meat_Head
09-18-2002, 01:10 PM
K, for us simpler folk, lets cut to the chase. What is the optimum way to burn fat while retaining muscle in the morning?

Jilla82
09-18-2002, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by xMeat_Headx
K, for us simpler folk, lets cut to the chase. What is the optimum way to burn fat while retaining muscle in the morning? :p yea, same question here

Yanick
09-18-2002, 01:36 PM
Timing is irrelevant unless you're up to the stubborn fat.

How's that?

Tryska
09-18-2002, 01:37 PM
do cardio whenever and do intervals when you do it. and keep it under 30 minutes.

MRJ
09-18-2002, 01:41 PM
First and foremost: Maintain a healthy balanced diet, accompanied by regular resistance training.

I call this my instant abs. routine. After I'm done the shirt stays off ! (I maintain 10% b/f, so it won't work for everyone)

Carb. depletion beginning at 2200 the evening before
Rise at 0630
DO NOT EAT, but DO hydrate yourself
Pre-load w/caffeine in tablet form(200 mg)
Complete cardio exercise of varying intensities/types in longer duration (2 hrs)
Follow with a recovery beverage (32 oz. simple carbs.,
30g protein, 5g glutamine)
Follow an hour later with a recovery meal (high protein/low gi carbs.)

Repeat until desired results are had.

Tryska
09-18-2002, 01:45 PM
mmm...i disagree on the recovery beverage post-cardio, whilst cutting.

Maki Riddington
09-18-2002, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Tryska
do cardio whenever and do intervals when you do it. and keep it under 30 minutes.

*** Yes, that sums it up. If I remember correctly in one of my articles I suggested that doing intervals in the afternoon would be most effective. Simply because your metabolism is at it's highest. So doing interval training in the afternoon will be your best bet.

MRJ
09-18-2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Tryska
mmm...i disagree on the recovery beverage post-cardio, whilst cutting.

More info. please . . . And an alternate suggestion or two is always welcomed.

p.s. - who stated anything about this routine being for cutting, I just do it for fun.

PowerManDL
09-18-2002, 06:36 PM
Aye...and if I have to post it again, I will......but intervals are *the* ticket for fat loss if you must do cardio, for more reasons than I can even remember off the top of my head.

Tryska
09-18-2002, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by MRJ


More info. please . . . And an alternate suggestion or two is always welcomed.

p.s. - who stated anything about this routine being for cutting, I just do it for fun.


you didn't. i said i disagreed with it for cutting purposes.

basically if you're cutting you wanna use up as much fat as possible. having those carbs post-cardio, would result in an insulin release. insulin being an anabolic storage hormone, it would basically stop the fat-burning process, as the cells would be busy storing that sugar as glycogen.

PowerManDL
09-18-2002, 07:50 PM
Yup, she's right. Insulin will shut down any after-effect rather quickly.

hemants
09-19-2002, 07:18 AM
1. I would think that any food eaten before cardio would be a preferred fuel source over stored fat so there would be no point.

2. Weight loss is all about caloric defecit so you can achieve this through cardio and/or eating less. It IS a zero sum game wrt weight loss but there is definately a heart health benefit to eating 300 more calories a day and then burning them off at some point.

3. I'm not sure where I stand on the HIIT vs medium intensity sustained debate. I've read that medium intensity cardio is better from the point of view of minimal muscle loss but I haven't seen this compared to HIIT, only to high intensity sustained running.

4. The most anti-catabolic thing you can do during cutting is weight training. The one question that arises in my mind is if you are accustomed to a once a week HIT full body routine during bulking, would you be better off to switching to lower intensity and higher volume during cutting.

The reason I think this might be true is a study that was performed where Group A did 500 calories worth of cardio vs Group B that did 500 calories of caloric defecit. Both lost equal weight but Group A lost more fat and less muscle. Neither group did weight training.

Stray
09-19-2002, 08:19 AM
Lift, run your ass off and eat well.

MRJ
09-19-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Tryska

basically if you're cutting you wanna use up as much fat as possible. having those carbs post-cardio, would result in an insulin release. insulin being an anabolic storage hormone, it would basically stop the fat-burning process, as the cells would be busy storing that sugar as glycogen.

Agreed with the insulin release w/high GI post w/o beverage, but. . . it can be managed, so negative effects are minimized.

We all know after intensive exercise the body is basically a sponge, it uses everything . . . storage, replenishment, etc.

In the scenario I alluded to there is a consumption of high GI carbs., yes, but not to high, if memory serves me correctly Gatorade has around 20g/16oz.

To the mix is added another 16 oz of water for the total of 32 oz.(sorry for not clarifying) The beverage is consumed slowly over an hour or so, so as not to get that spike you mentioned.

After this time insulin has moderated itself and the body is fed what it requires, namely protein & carbs. (of the complex variety) to begin the repair process and as long as we eat sensibly in a mode that maintains a caloric deficit there won't be much to store, theoretically.

I work under the assumption that for persons other than those who are trying for single digit b/f the whole insulin, cardio, eat this now and that later arguments are a bit unproductive.

If we simply maintain a slightly negative energy balance (via cardio or diet) we will lose fat, no ? And yes, a bit o'muscle as well. Hopefully the loss of the good stuff can be minimized if we follow sensible dieting procedures.

Tryska
09-19-2002, 01:08 PM
oh, that part i didn't know.

if your basically doing a "glucose drip" sort of thing, i suppose it would be mitigated, somewhat.

galileo
09-19-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by hemants
The reason I think this might be true is a study that was performed where Group A did 500 calories worth of cardio vs Group B that did 500 calories of caloric defecit. Both lost equal weight but Group A lost more fat and less muscle. Neither group did weight training.

If neither did weight training, the group that did cardio had a slight chance of building some muscle in the legs in response to the new movement. I have heard of people's legs getting fairly large from bicycling and the like. It's not a preferred method, but I bet that could account for some of the results.

PowerManDL
09-19-2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by hemants
1. I would think that any food eaten before cardio would be a preferred fuel source over stored fat so there would be no point.
HIIT creates a very pronounced energy deficit that preferentially burns fat like no other form of exercise. The point to eating beforehand would be to fuel the anaerobic component. The fat loss will occur afterwards.

3. I'm not sure where I stand on the HIIT vs medium intensity sustained debate. I've read that medium intensity cardio is better from the point of view of minimal muscle loss but I haven't seen this compared to HIIT, only to high intensity sustained running.

HIIT is anaerobic, with the aerobic component (if any) being brief and only for recovery purposes. Aerobic exercise is what (can) catabolize muscle.

You do the math.

4. The most anti-catabolic thing you can do during cutting is weight training. The one question that arises in my mind is if you are accustomed to a once a week HIT full body routine during bulking, would you be better off to switching to lower intensity and higher volume during cutting.

Probably so, if for no other reason than weight training like that will have a metabolic effect very similar to HIIT.

The reason I think this might be true is a study that was performed where Group A did 500 calories worth of cardio vs Group B that did 500 calories of caloric defecit. Both lost equal weight but Group A lost more fat and less muscle. Neither group did weight training.

Stands to reason. I'm just hazarding a guess here, but it would seem that without weight training, endurance cardio could very well serve as a stimulus for at least the preservation of muscle tissue.

However, bear in mind that the people involved in this study very likely didn't carry very much if any added muscle mass, as do most of us looking to this research.

hemants
09-20-2002, 07:53 AM
Powerman!

You got me psyched now! Can you linky some research that shows that HIIT burns a higher percentage of fat vs muscle than medium intensity cardio?

Maybe I should just start playing squash again LOL :)

hemants
09-20-2002, 08:10 AM
Never mind P,


here it is

http://www.wsu.edu/athletics/strength/hiit.htm

"Research by Hickson et al (11) further supports the notion that the predominant fuel substrate used during exercise does not play a role in fat loss"

"a large body of evidence shows that high-intensity protocols, notably intermittent protocols, result in significantly greater post-exercise energy expenditure and fat utilization than low- or moderate-intensity protocols"

and the kicker...


"Tremblay et al (23) performed the most notable study which demonstrates that high-intensity exercise, specifically intermittent, supramaximal exercise, is the most optimal for fat loss...The decrease in six subcutaneous skinfolds tended to be greater in the HIIT group than the ET group, despite the dramatically lower energy cost of training. When expressed on a per MJ basis, the HIIT group's reduction in skinfolds was nine times greater than the ET group. "

2 RIP
09-20-2002, 10:03 AM
what's wrong with doing cardio over 30min.

Yanick
09-20-2002, 10:16 AM
nothing's wrong with it per se. We're just saying that HIIT is more effective on a number of levels.