Originally Posted by saevel25
Not sure if this is entirely true. I would say that results have proven this, but I wouldn't put it as the one and only way. The primary reason is that certain actions burn more fat than carbs. So at certain point you are always burning some form of fat, and carbs at the same time. I don't think it is a black and white switch. That is not saying it doesn't work. To burn fat you need to be starving yourself. As to say starve, I mean burn more calories than take in at a certain level that your body will want to burn fat. Carbs are a use now storage, while fat is long term. So, it is a balance of getting your body to want to burn the fat, then making sure your body doesn't go crazy and shut down the metabolism stop the fat loss. The body is designed to put on fat and not starve. When you are the top of the food chain, the only way enemies you have are drowning, starvation, accidental deaths, and inter-species killing. Really the best known way to take off fat is intermittent fasting. Even then you do not need to work out when you are fasting. As long as your body is knowing it is active it will burn the calories.
While IF is awesome, the best known way to take off fat consistently in the literature is being in a caloric deficit. Lots of great benefits of IF, but the deficit is most important. That being said, I love IF, mostly for the way it compacts my eating plan. I've always been a big single meal eater, so narrowing my food intake window is great for letting me enjoy big meals without ruining a whole day.
Originally Posted by mvmac
Very cool. One thing that can help is to work out fasted, before you eat, use up those glycogen storage levels (storage unit for carbs and sugars) in the liver and muscles. If those are depleted, the body resorts to another energy source to keep blood glucose levels normal, fat. The body burns carbohydrates first and fat later.
If you want to burn fat, you have to deplete your glycogen stores to tap fat reserves. This is why experts suggest cardio be performed for an hour to maximize fat burning. The alternative is to perform exercises in a fasted state to “trick the body.” I typically do resistance cardio, kettlebells, in the morning before I eat, 20-30 mins. Also a good way to "diet" without losing muscle. The body doesn't know the difference between cutting calories to lose some weight and starving, so it will want to hold back fat, exercising in a fasted state and eating well (5-6 days a week) takes care of that.
While there is evidence of a cadio "fat burning zone" where you will burn more fat during exercise, you have to consider long term fat balance when talking about what cardio is best for weight loss. saevel also has a good point in that our metabolism is very complex and the utilization of fat or carbs for energy is governed by many things, so both are always being utilized to some extent. Also, higher intensity cardio may not burn as much during exercise, but long term (post-workout) it can burn the same, if not more than lower intensity workouts. Either way can be very effective when placed in the context of your diet, goals, and preference.
The benefits of fasted cardio don't seem to have enough of an effect to globally recommend it. It's something that can probably be left to personal preference. mvmac, the kettlebell workouts for 30 minutes sound brutal to get through, but awesome for weight loss however you slice it--you are braver than me!
Before eating holidays, I try to get through a big cardio workout to make up for the damage about to be done to my belly. This Christmas eve (that's our big eating day) morning was a half mile run, 50 pull ups, 100 push ups, 150 BW squats, and 50 KB swings in any order to knock them out. I stick mostly to weight lifting, so I'm still hurting from both the workout and the food.........