Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Burning_Inside
Elite Mentor
from wannabebig.com
Wannabebig: Straying from nutrition for a moment and its effects on fat loss let’s look at the physical aspect of fat loss. What's your take on doing any type of morning 'cardio' on an empty stomach or performing some sort of resistance training? I believe it was Bill Phillips who revolutionized this method and it's always been a topic that's sure to spark up a good debate.
Lyle M: Oh, this should be fun, piss some readers off. For the most part (with one or two exceptions), I don't think it matters. What Phillips (and everyone else) is getting at is this: in the morning, there is a high concentration of free fatty acids in your bloodstream, because of the overnight fast, low insulin, blah, blah, blah.
Now, we've known for years that, in general, the body will burn whatever fuel is most available. Studies reliably show that when you ramp up fatty acid availability to the muscle, the muscle burns more fat.
So the logic goes: do cardio in the morning, when there are lots of fatty acids available and you will burn more fat and thus lose more fat.
Wannabebig: Seems like a reasonable concept.
Lyle M: And the logic is 100% sound right up until the last part of it "...thus lose more fat." A fundamental mistake that's been held by researchers, physiologists, trainers and coaches for decades is that 'burning fat during activity = fat loss'. You find the same argument in the 'do low intensity activity because you burn a greater percentage of fat' folks; they logic that burning more fat during activity = more fat loss.
The problem (well, there are many problems) is that they are focusing only on what's happening during the exercise bout. That is, they are worried only about what's being burned during the 30 minutes of activity. That's problem #1: what about the other 23.5 hours of the day? Most (but not all) studies have shown that, when you look at total fat use over 24 hours in response to activity, the body will figure it out. For example, if you burn more fat during exercise, you tend to burn less fat the rest of the day; if you burn more glycogen during exercise, you burn more fat the rest of the day. Over 24 hours, it balances. At least two studies have shown (and note that this wasn't in bodybuilders or lean folks) that as long as the calorie burn during activity is the same, fat loss is the same. They had folks exercise at either a low or high intensity for something like 70 or 35 minutes (calorie burn was identical in either case). Fat loss was the same over the course of the study.
Wannabebig: But what about the other side to this?
Lyle M: Now hold on, some studies actually support the opposite. Studies on interval training have shown greater fat loss with the intervals, even though fewer calories (and far less fat) are being burned. What's the reason? There are a few reasons actually. The first is that there is a period after exercise where your body continued to burn calories. Researchers usually call this excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (or EPOC). The EPOC after low-intensity fat burning activity is tiny. You may burn a few calories afterwards and that's it. So what you burn during the activity is pretty much it. After high intensity exercise (even though you're burning mainly glycogen and very little fat), you get a much larger EPOC. In addition, most of those calories come from fat stores. Bill's brother Shawn had been on the intervals for fat loss crusade for a few years now.
Empirically, you can also ask yourself who are the leanest athletes. Usually, it's sprinters (bodybuilders come in a close second). These guys rarely run more than 20-30 seconds, they are never in their fat burning zone. By the logic that you must 'burn fat to lose fat', these guys should be fat. They're not because what really matters is how many calories you're burning during the day (and if there is a deficit). And that's just problem #1.
Another problem is that, you actually end up releasing far more fatty acids in the morning than your body can burn in the first place. That is, beyond a certain point, having more fatty acids in the bloodstream doesn't increase fatty acid burning, because the limitation is now in how fast the muscle can actually burn them up. Fatty acid availability isn't the problem under most circumstances.
If I wanted to be a real jackass, I could even make an argument against morning cardio on the following argument: intensity. As above, fat loss is related to calorie burn; calorie burn is going to be related to intensity (or duration). First thing in the morning, with lowered blood glucose and no food, it's hard for most people to do their cardio at a very high intensity. So their calorie burn is going to be low. I mean go into any gym, the morning cardio folks are usually plodding along, they may be burning a whopping five cal/minute.
Wannabebig: That's an understatement.
Lyle M: So over 30 minutes that's a whole 150 calories. Yippee. Intervals first thing in the morning on an empty stomach (what Shawn Phillips recommends) are even harder. You're going in with lowered blood glucose and you're going to try to do a max workout? Good luck.
Now, before I move on to one of the exceptions to all of the above, lemme say this: except for my slightly weird anti-morning cardio argument, I don't think it's going to *hurt* anything to do cardio first thing in the morning. I'm not convinced it's going to *help* or enhance fat loss, but it's not going to hurt. I suspect that much of the reason that morning cardio 'works', is the same reason other things work: it develops a psychological pattern. Again, as much as most people don't want to believe it, most things work for psychological as much as physiological reasons. That's certainly the case for much of CKD/Bodyopus types of diets. I believed in it, it controlled my carb cravings (by allowing them at only certain times) and I stuck to it better. Psychology.
Wannabebig: Straying from nutrition for a moment and its effects on fat loss let’s look at the physical aspect of fat loss. What's your take on doing any type of morning 'cardio' on an empty stomach or performing some sort of resistance training? I believe it was Bill Phillips who revolutionized this method and it's always been a topic that's sure to spark up a good debate.
Lyle M: Oh, this should be fun, piss some readers off. For the most part (with one or two exceptions), I don't think it matters. What Phillips (and everyone else) is getting at is this: in the morning, there is a high concentration of free fatty acids in your bloodstream, because of the overnight fast, low insulin, blah, blah, blah.
Now, we've known for years that, in general, the body will burn whatever fuel is most available. Studies reliably show that when you ramp up fatty acid availability to the muscle, the muscle burns more fat.
So the logic goes: do cardio in the morning, when there are lots of fatty acids available and you will burn more fat and thus lose more fat.
Wannabebig: Seems like a reasonable concept.
Lyle M: And the logic is 100% sound right up until the last part of it "...thus lose more fat." A fundamental mistake that's been held by researchers, physiologists, trainers and coaches for decades is that 'burning fat during activity = fat loss'. You find the same argument in the 'do low intensity activity because you burn a greater percentage of fat' folks; they logic that burning more fat during activity = more fat loss.
The problem (well, there are many problems) is that they are focusing only on what's happening during the exercise bout. That is, they are worried only about what's being burned during the 30 minutes of activity. That's problem #1: what about the other 23.5 hours of the day? Most (but not all) studies have shown that, when you look at total fat use over 24 hours in response to activity, the body will figure it out. For example, if you burn more fat during exercise, you tend to burn less fat the rest of the day; if you burn more glycogen during exercise, you burn more fat the rest of the day. Over 24 hours, it balances. At least two studies have shown (and note that this wasn't in bodybuilders or lean folks) that as long as the calorie burn during activity is the same, fat loss is the same. They had folks exercise at either a low or high intensity for something like 70 or 35 minutes (calorie burn was identical in either case). Fat loss was the same over the course of the study.
Wannabebig: But what about the other side to this?
Lyle M: Now hold on, some studies actually support the opposite. Studies on interval training have shown greater fat loss with the intervals, even though fewer calories (and far less fat) are being burned. What's the reason? There are a few reasons actually. The first is that there is a period after exercise where your body continued to burn calories. Researchers usually call this excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (or EPOC). The EPOC after low-intensity fat burning activity is tiny. You may burn a few calories afterwards and that's it. So what you burn during the activity is pretty much it. After high intensity exercise (even though you're burning mainly glycogen and very little fat), you get a much larger EPOC. In addition, most of those calories come from fat stores. Bill's brother Shawn had been on the intervals for fat loss crusade for a few years now.
Empirically, you can also ask yourself who are the leanest athletes. Usually, it's sprinters (bodybuilders come in a close second). These guys rarely run more than 20-30 seconds, they are never in their fat burning zone. By the logic that you must 'burn fat to lose fat', these guys should be fat. They're not because what really matters is how many calories you're burning during the day (and if there is a deficit). And that's just problem #1.
Another problem is that, you actually end up releasing far more fatty acids in the morning than your body can burn in the first place. That is, beyond a certain point, having more fatty acids in the bloodstream doesn't increase fatty acid burning, because the limitation is now in how fast the muscle can actually burn them up. Fatty acid availability isn't the problem under most circumstances.
If I wanted to be a real jackass, I could even make an argument against morning cardio on the following argument: intensity. As above, fat loss is related to calorie burn; calorie burn is going to be related to intensity (or duration). First thing in the morning, with lowered blood glucose and no food, it's hard for most people to do their cardio at a very high intensity. So their calorie burn is going to be low. I mean go into any gym, the morning cardio folks are usually plodding along, they may be burning a whopping five cal/minute.
Wannabebig: That's an understatement.
Lyle M: So over 30 minutes that's a whole 150 calories. Yippee. Intervals first thing in the morning on an empty stomach (what Shawn Phillips recommends) are even harder. You're going in with lowered blood glucose and you're going to try to do a max workout? Good luck.
Now, before I move on to one of the exceptions to all of the above, lemme say this: except for my slightly weird anti-morning cardio argument, I don't think it's going to *hurt* anything to do cardio first thing in the morning. I'm not convinced it's going to *help* or enhance fat loss, but it's not going to hurt. I suspect that much of the reason that morning cardio 'works', is the same reason other things work: it develops a psychological pattern. Again, as much as most people don't want to believe it, most things work for psychological as much as physiological reasons. That's certainly the case for much of CKD/Bodyopus types of diets. I believed in it, it controlled my carb cravings (by allowing them at only certain times) and I stuck to it better. Psychology.
