Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Final word on cardio on empty stomach?
- Thread starter sk*
- Start date
Fukkenshredded
New member
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.
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.
Last edited:
JG1 said:
I guess that explains my results then
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
New member
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.
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.
Fukkenshredded said:
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
New member
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
Phaeton said:
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.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
Nelson Montana said:
You have been presented with concrete evidence that clearly shows you're wrong. Why must you insist on making a complete ass out of yourself??? I knocked you against the ropes with body blows to the gut and FS and poantrex came in with the uppercut and knocked you down for the count. The boxing match is over Nelson. You lost hands down! Get a clue, swallow your pride and admit for the first time that you were wrong! Admit it Nelson. Come on, you can do it.
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.
This is so typical of someone who has nothing to say and no point to make -- arguing somantics.
Fukkenshredded
New member
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.
"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.
Last edited:
J
Juice Authority
Guest
Nelson Montana said: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.
Funny, that's exactly what I think about mostof your posts.
B
basskiller
Guest
Nelson Montana said:
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...
Nelson Montana said:
Yes no study can be absolutely true, because of the simple fact that neither the study can be possibly done in a vacume nor do we live in a vacume. However, looking at studies does help us go towards our goal of the "truth". IMO, saying I have 30 years of experience is a study by itself but it is a "weaker" study as it doesn't say what the experience is and what it is based on.
Bro, you already post here all day long, I really don't see why you have to say "I'd be spending all day tracking the shot down" specially since that's exactly what you do when someone else posts a study.
See I have not conducted any experiments, I am not a scientist, nor do I have 30 years of experience but "studies' do appeal to me simply because they are more credible than experience.
It just seems to me that you never post the data or the studies you have gathered and get offended when asked for it. Then you proceed to ask them for their studies, and now FS did indead post some and you go on to say "I am not going to play the 'I can site more references than you can' game."
If you can't paste the studies than tell us where they are. If you don't have studies that's fine, but please tell us that. I just don't get how someone can go on and on about their 30 years experience ... ARGH ... i'm not even gonna finish, this is pointless and is starting to hurt my head.
It's always the same story over and over again with you. -sk
J
Juice Authority
Guest
basskiller said:
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.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
sk* said:
Yes no study can be absolutely true, because of the simple fact that neither the study can be possibly done in a vacume nor do we live in a vacume. However, looking at studies does help us go towards our goal of the "truth". IMO, saying I have 30 years of experience is a study by itself but it is a "weaker" study as it doesn't say what the experience is and what it is based on.
Bro, you already post here all day long, I really don't see why you have to say "I'd be spending all day tracking the shot down" specially since that's exactly what you do when someone else posts a study.
See I have not conducted any experiments, I am not a scientist, nor do I have 30 years of experience but "studies' do appeal to me simply because they are more credible than experience.
It just seems to me that you never post the data or the studies you have gathered and get offended when asked for it. Then you proceed to ask them for their studies, and now FS did indead post some and you go on to say "I am not going to play the 'I can site more references than you can' game."
If you can't paste the studies than tell us where they are. If you don't have studies that's fine, but please tell us that. I just don't get how someone can go on and on about their 30 years experience ... ARGH ... i'm not even gonna finish, this is pointless and is starting to hurt my head.
-sk
Nelson has lost any credibility he ever had in this very thread for the reasons mentioned above. He should get out of the business and find a new vocation. Once people read this thread I highly doubt they will be spending a ridiculous $40 on his book.
The circular arguing of Nelson saddens me. I do like some of his ideas, espcially avoiding Clomid. However, he constantly asks for proof and studies to back up opinions, but when those are provided, he either discredits them or says that he doesn't want to play the reference game.
Most importantly, he gives no logical rationale for avoiding cardio. Morning cardio has been proven. Moreover, HIIT has been shown to burn fat much like lifting weights but without the CNS stress and catabolism.
I say, close this thread and lets stop beating our heads into a wall. We may as argue with Christian fundamentalists that the world is more than 5,000 years old.
Most importantly, he gives no logical rationale for avoiding cardio. Morning cardio has been proven. Moreover, HIIT has been shown to burn fat much like lifting weights but without the CNS stress and catabolism.
I say, close this thread and lets stop beating our heads into a wall. We may as argue with Christian fundamentalists that the world is more than 5,000 years old.
Fukkenshredded
New member
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.
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.
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.
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
New member
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
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
New member
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.
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
New member
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.
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.
Transporter
New member
Cortisol is a steroid hormone produced in your body's adrenal gland and is released during high-stress physical and even mental states such as exercise, anger, trauma, and also in extreme temperatures.
When cortisol is secreted, it causes a breakdown of muscle protein (catabolism).
Cortisol is the highest in the morning when u wake up.
go do cardio on empty stomach and guess what.
good luck!
When cortisol is secreted, it causes a breakdown of muscle protein (catabolism).
Cortisol is the highest in the morning when u wake up.
go do cardio on empty stomach and guess what.
good luck!
Transporter
New member
The amino acids from this broken down protein are released into the bloodstream and are used by the liver to synthesize glucose for energy. This process is called called gluconeogenesis. This raises the blood sugar level to ensure the brain will have more glucose for energy. This process prepares the body to deal with stressors and insures that the brain maintains an adequate energy source via glucose.
Cortisol is absolutely necessary and plays a role in just about every function in the human body. However, excesses and deficiencies of cortisol can lead to various physical abnormalities and disease states. This being the case, your body has a very elaborate feedback system to maintain optimum cortisol control.
You can't escape cortisol release and you don't want to. However, you can strategically manipulate cortisol secretion to maximize your body's anabolic activities. This is where optimizing the timing of your nutrition comes into play.
Cortisol secretion is very high during and directly after training. In fact, what most people don't realize is that training itself is catabolic to muscle tissue. It's the recovery process, that starts immediately after training, that is anabolic to muscle tissue.
The longer you go without supplying nutritional support after you train, the longer elevated cortisol levels will remain, the more muscle breakdown you will experience, and the less anabolic response you will get from your training. This goes for both weight training and cardio as well.
One last thing, cortisol levels are naturally elevated after sleep, when you first wake up. Those that still insist on weight training or doing cardio on an empty stomach under the misguided assumption that this somehow burns more fat are only intensifying cortisol's catabolic effects on lean muscle. You'll actually increase muscle loss and decrease your body's ability to burn fat.
For information on various ways to manipulate cortisol click here.
Cortisol is absolutely necessary and plays a role in just about every function in the human body. However, excesses and deficiencies of cortisol can lead to various physical abnormalities and disease states. This being the case, your body has a very elaborate feedback system to maintain optimum cortisol control.
You can't escape cortisol release and you don't want to. However, you can strategically manipulate cortisol secretion to maximize your body's anabolic activities. This is where optimizing the timing of your nutrition comes into play.
Cortisol secretion is very high during and directly after training. In fact, what most people don't realize is that training itself is catabolic to muscle tissue. It's the recovery process, that starts immediately after training, that is anabolic to muscle tissue.
The longer you go without supplying nutritional support after you train, the longer elevated cortisol levels will remain, the more muscle breakdown you will experience, and the less anabolic response you will get from your training. This goes for both weight training and cardio as well.
One last thing, cortisol levels are naturally elevated after sleep, when you first wake up. Those that still insist on weight training or doing cardio on an empty stomach under the misguided assumption that this somehow burns more fat are only intensifying cortisol's catabolic effects on lean muscle. You'll actually increase muscle loss and decrease your body's ability to burn fat.
For information on various ways to manipulate cortisol click here.
Transporter
New member
What you have to understand is that cardio exercise is not specifically burning fat while you are performing it. Though you are burning calories, the real fat burning effects cardio training imparts are through increasing both your resting and total daily metabolic rate. Cardio training boosts your metabolism and increases your body's ability to burn fat 24-hours a day.
Don't think for a second that cardio training burns fat only during the time of the training. And don't sacrifice lean muscle growth and recuperation through misguided advice. Doing cardio after an 8-hour fast is a surefire way to lose muscle without burning fat.
Don't think for a second that cardio training burns fat only during the time of the training. And don't sacrifice lean muscle growth and recuperation through misguided advice. Doing cardio after an 8-hour fast is a surefire way to lose muscle without burning fat.
Transporter said:
I suggest you go sift through this thread and read some of the studies. I can't tell you how many studies i've seen in magazines attesting to the effectiveness of cardio after fasting for fat loss - Think about it - when is your body most efficient at burning fat? When glucose and insulin levels are at their lowest. When are at their lowest? After fasting.
I have also seen tremendous results on myself, losing a great deal of fat with no loss of strength or muscle. Like FS said, it really depends on your initial level of bodyfat; if you're presently lean you're more likely to waste muscle but otherwise you'll be burning mostly fat - also, you will burn fat both DURING and after exercise if you do it at the correct intensity.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
DaMan said:
Fuck off. It takes two to tango and Nelson was a major player in the "infantile" attacks too. Plus, I've added quite a bit of good, viable content to this thread. What have you contributed exactly???
J
Juice Authority
Guest
hhajdo said:
Bingo! I knew it was just a matter of time before hhajdo showed up and posted the concrete indisputable evidence Nelson claims doesn't exist. You must feel extremely stupid now Nelson. LOL!
Nelson, if the studies above don't flicker out any shred of hope that you were right I don't know what will.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
Nelson Montana said:
LMAO!!!
DaMan said:
Could have been great, right? But there's always some a-hole who has to piss on the party. This month it's this guy -- next month, someone else. It must be great to be so be so stupid you can't comprehend how little you know.
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.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
DaMan said:
Nope, I'm a registered welcomed member of that board. You're starting to bug especially with all the Nelson ass-kissing you're doing. Are you angling for a discount on his next book? LOL
no matter how much either side presents its kind of like the left side and the right side in politics nobody is gonna give in and agree.
nelson asked for proof it was given and he debated it. the proof was actually given and he took apart the proof and presented his proof.
his proof was than taken apart and debated. why turn this into grudge. all of us here will make our own opinions on this, case closed. mine is cardio is more effective on an empty stomach.
though i don't agree with Nelson I will not rake him over the coals for his beleifs and his proof of his theory as he is probably a democrat (lol) and I am republican and we would not agree anyway.
instead of either side getting pissed know you have all presented great arguments and each us us will think as we please. keep all of the other shit off as this post is way to good to turn into a flame war.
JUST MY THOUGHTS
nelson asked for proof it was given and he debated it. the proof was actually given and he took apart the proof and presented his proof.
his proof was than taken apart and debated. why turn this into grudge. all of us here will make our own opinions on this, case closed. mine is cardio is more effective on an empty stomach.
though i don't agree with Nelson I will not rake him over the coals for his beleifs and his proof of his theory as he is probably a democrat (lol) and I am republican and we would not agree anyway.
instead of either side getting pissed know you have all presented great arguments and each us us will think as we please. keep all of the other shit off as this post is way to good to turn into a flame war.
JUST MY THOUGHTS
B
basskiller
Guest
flexed1 said:
Flexed.. I don't really see where Nelson has proved a thing... I was really looking forward to him doing so.. I'm in the middle of a cutting phase at the moment. And I'm pretty much at a stand still. I was looking for some insight from this thread.. Besides the bickering, I still think it was on it's way to becoming a very good thread, but one of the main participants has now bailed because he choose the path he has stated instead of just ignoring the person that he feels has done him harm..
OH well.... As far as I see it.. There are a few studies and references that state cardio on an empty stomach is the way to go...
My freakin morning is getting to the point where I went to bed when I was young...LOL
as it sits, My work day starts now at 4:00am I guess.. what the hells another hour...LOL
J
Juice Authority
Guest
flexed1 said:
Agreed and I apologize for my part in the flame fest. The evidence has been presented (althought I have yet to see any of Nelson's studies supporting his position), the jury has voted and the majority have found that cardio on an empty stomach burns more fat. Case closed.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
basskiller said:
I don't think Flexed agrees with Nelson at all. I believe he was just trying to end the bickering.
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
jb
Nelson Montana said:
I hate to bust your bubble but i have seen NO experimental data to support this position that cardio on an empty stomach burns muscle. We are talking everyday medium ntensity cario here,lets not talk about marathon runners. If i am wrong, simply post the study to demonstrate it.
jb
jb
flexed1 said:
jboldman said:
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.
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.
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.
jboldman said:
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.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
Nelson Montana said:
Please post a link to any thread where I "praised" you. You're delusional.
Juice Authority said:
You're on. But lets not just make this more mindless bickering. Let's put everything n the line.
A while back you posted a thread where you apologized to me and the board. In it, you praised me and my knowledge. Then, when someone else started in with me, you jumped on board and erased the apology thread. I'm sure some members saw it, and remember it. Now you're claiming it never existed.
So here's my proposition:
If anyone comes on and says they saw it, will you admit you're a liar, and that you have attempted to deceive the members of the board and promise to leave and never return?
If you're telling the truth, you have nothing to worry about.
Let's see how good your word is.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
Nelson Montana said:
First off and for the 15th time, I DIDN'T DELETE THAT THREAD, THE MODS DID. Will you please get that through your think skull. Secondly, you started back in with me so it was a short-lived peace. Third, that thread was praise??? It was an apology to you and the board for the constant back and forth flaming between you and I. I praised your knowledge in that thread? LOL!! Look, I never said you weren't knowledgeable in certain areas but "praise"? Come on, get a grip on reality Bro. How the hell can you misconstrue that as praise for Christ's sake??? Man, you truly do live in a world of your own interpretation.
Last edited:
J
Juice Authority
Guest
sk* said:
Everyone does.
But seriously, let's just move on as arguing over nothing won't benefit anyone.
-sk
I agree, I'm done.
I bet you never thought this thread would turn into this huh?
drveejay11
New member
157 posts and NO ONE's nailed it yet??? Genetics!!! ....As always!!!!
EVERYONE'S got a buddy or at least knows of someone who eats McDonald's and Dunkin Doughnuts ED and yet maintains a stellar physique boasting a 6 pack and veins that are an inch in diameter that run down the biceps! Genetics also in the same fashion dictate WHAT will be burned during an AM macronutrient-deprived cardio session: muscle or fat! Period! Diet, exercise, and hormones can manipulate or rather "optimize" a situation; however....you have what you have what you have forever!
My spin with regard to "optimizing this genetic-driven arena": I think JB's comment regading maintaining optimal amino acid pools in addition to HHajdo's referenced scientific study......make the most sense.....to ME anyway.
I notice I LOOK better after a morning session of cardio (no food prior) as well....but is this water or fat!?!?!? I'd BET water! So.....I always take in 40 grams of WHEY only protein 45 minutes prior to any cardio. At least I'm doing what I can to protect my precious hard-earned muscle. If I want to burn fat.....I'll cut the carbs, increase my LEAN protein intake a little and lower BAD fats in exchange for strictly healthy fats (flax/fich/x-virgin olive oil) and reduce my calories for the day by about 15-20%.
Oh.....and a little var and/or tren wouldn't hurt either
EVERYONE'S got a buddy or at least knows of someone who eats McDonald's and Dunkin Doughnuts ED and yet maintains a stellar physique boasting a 6 pack and veins that are an inch in diameter that run down the biceps! Genetics also in the same fashion dictate WHAT will be burned during an AM macronutrient-deprived cardio session: muscle or fat! Period! Diet, exercise, and hormones can manipulate or rather "optimize" a situation; however....you have what you have what you have forever!
My spin with regard to "optimizing this genetic-driven arena": I think JB's comment regading maintaining optimal amino acid pools in addition to HHajdo's referenced scientific study......make the most sense.....to ME anyway.
I notice I LOOK better after a morning session of cardio (no food prior) as well....but is this water or fat!?!?!? I'd BET water! So.....I always take in 40 grams of WHEY only protein 45 minutes prior to any cardio. At least I'm doing what I can to protect my precious hard-earned muscle. If I want to burn fat.....I'll cut the carbs, increase my LEAN protein intake a little and lower BAD fats in exchange for strictly healthy fats (flax/fich/x-virgin olive oil) and reduce my calories for the day by about 15-20%.
Oh.....and a little var and/or tren wouldn't hurt either
Last edited:
Juice Authority said:
I agree, I'm done.
I bet you never thought this thread would turn into this huh?
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.
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.
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.
Nelson Montana said:
J
Juice Authority
Guest
Nelson Montana said:
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:
http://anabolicfitness.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=702093973&f=312093973&m=9593076827
http://anabolicfitness.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=702093973&f=312093973&m=6053048827
That's a lot of people Nelson. I haven't seen too many supporters of your position on this thread at all. Two people at tops (Transporter and someone else), both of which had very little to offer in the way of evidence other than to parrot what you said. If people buy your book after reading through this thread they need to have their head examined!!!
J
Juice Authority
Guest
Interesting points made by Lyle M. Thanks for sharing that.
Hmmm, I'm not he biggest Lyle McDonald fan in the world but it sounds like he's pretty much saying what I've been saying all along -- the main difference being he didn't have someone jumping down his throat every other sentance.
It just goes to show you. People aren't really reacting to what is being said --but who to said it. If that post read "writen by Nelson Montana" I wonder if some peoples opinion of it would be the same. On the other end of the spectrum, I've had my work plagerized and reprinted over at another website (that shall remain unmentioned) and it was praised to the hilt -- until I let it be known that I wrote it. Then suddenly it was crap. Just goes to show you.
It just goes to show you. People aren't really reacting to what is being said --but who to said it. If that post read "writen by Nelson Montana" I wonder if some peoples opinion of it would be the same. On the other end of the spectrum, I've had my work plagerized and reprinted over at another website (that shall remain unmentioned) and it was praised to the hilt -- until I let it be known that I wrote it. Then suddenly it was crap. Just goes to show you.
Lift Chief
New member
Great quote from lyle there... have heard a lot of others on this board saying that as well... makes sense that intervals would be teh best way to burn fat.
J
Johnny Cut
Guest
bump
R
roidpuple
Guest
I would say doing cardio on a full stomach is going to burn more calories
than on a empty.. simply because it take energy to digest it.. and it would be harder on your body..
than on a empty.. simply because it take energy to digest it.. and it would be harder on your body..
Similar threads
