all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Review on LISS. Slow, sustained fat loss among other health benefits.

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)

Ian CL

Level 6 Valued Member

North

Level 6 Valued Member
Thanks for sharing. So far I have found this article to provide “confirmation bias” to my preconceived notions (obtained from this forum, Q&D books, and Pat Flynn/Dan John podcasts. To burn fat (and spare lean muscle mass):

1. Train fasted (intermittent fasting), seriously don’t eat before you train if fat loss is your goal.
2. Consider green tea as your beverage of choice.
3. Protein is important (aim for 1g/kg or so)
4. Do your workout (A&A snatches or LCCJ or the Giant) before your cardio.
5. Intense workouts may have an “afterburn” effect. Ie do some swings or complexes to get the heart rate up!
6. Cardio should be relatively easy (i.e. a pace you can maintain for 45 minutes). For maximum fat oxidation this number is surprisingly low…for me it is around 100 bpm (for context my Maffetone number is 130-140 bpm).
6. Ambulating is the preferred exercise for weight loss.
7. Routine training helps promote fat burning,


Others can chime in to round out the list…
 

Francisco

Level 5 Valued Member
Thanks for sharing. So far I have found this article to provide “confirmation bias” to my preconceived notions (obtained from this forum, Q&D books, and Pat Flynn/Dan John podcasts. To burn fat (and spare lean muscle mass):

1. Train fasted (intermittent fasting), seriously don’t eat before you train if fat loss is your goal.
2. Consider green tea as your beverage of choice.
3. Protein is important (aim for 1g/kg or so)
4. Do your workout (A&A snatches or LCCJ or the Giant) before your cardio.
5. Intense workouts may have an “afterburn” effect. Ie do some swings or complexes to get the heart rate up!
6. Cardio should be relatively easy (i.e. a pace you can maintain for 45 minutes). For maximum fat oxidation this number is surprisingly low…for me it is around 100 bpm (for context my Maffetone number is 130-140 bpm).
6. Ambulating is the preferred exercise for weight loss.
7. Routine training helps promote fat burning,


Others can chime in to round out the list…
Great list!!

Couple of things:
Protein intake could be higher (from the 1gr/kg you mention to 2gr/kg) this is useful since protein has the lowest kcal per gram (once you consider thermogenesis) and also is the one that fills your belly the most. So eating less calories you actually fill up sooner.

Second thing: sleep. Good sleep makes you loose fat and build muscle (under appropriate stimuli - diet& training)
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Elite Certified Instructor
Thanks for sharing. So far I have found this article to provide “confirmation bias” to my preconceived notions (obtained from this forum, Q&D books, and Pat Flynn/Dan John podcasts.
My reaction was similar, although it was more along the lines of, “Yes, I learned these things when I attended strong endurance and when I read the quick and the dead book and when I read many of the articles on the StrongFirst website.“

I’m just back from an hour and a half walk. My heart rate during these is usually around 100.

-S-
 

Adachi

Level 6 Valued Member
My reaction was similar, although it was more along the lines of, “Yes, I learned these things when I attended strong endurance and when I read the quick and the dead book and when I read many of the articles on the StrongFirst website.“

I’m just back from an hour and a half walk. My heart rate during these is usually around 100.

-S-
I felt the same way. the voice is different, though, when speaking from a medically inclined background. it's voiced differently, and could be used as a springboard to more investigation about the positive/negative feedback loops provided by the body's reaction to various stimulation ranges. there is much terrain here, which is alluded to, without being mapped out explicitly.

e.g.: we know in general that the protein intake may be beneficial above certain minimum thresholds. However, there is no knowledge about an upper ceiling protein intake limitation. moreover, we know that proteins can be broken apart into their component parts, into amino acids. Are they? stated differently: we've achieved a certain amount of mapping of oxygen transport, electron transport, and energy system replenishment. how well have we mapped protein transport from digestion to employment & repair? the answer is : almost not at all.
 

Adachi

Level 6 Valued Member
This has been pretty much debunked at this point.

It's your net energy balance that matters the most.

If you prefer training fasted, that's fine, but the evidence is that it's not that important when it comes to fat loss vs just being in a deficit.
there are mitigating factors outside of very healthy metabolic systems.

e.g. if I eat all carbs or all protein or all fat (and for weeks at a time I have tried to maximize each just to see what would happen) - each of these compositional makeups would have drastically different effects. the Human body is not a caloric bomb(not even close). it is a complex machine with levers and trap doors, chutes and ladders, and a logic of its own. energy balance is an important metric, and it has its domain of relevance. and for many reasons, it is often times not enough information, in order to resolve many questions.
 

watchnerd

Level 8 Valued Member
there are mitigating factors outside of very healthy metabolic systems.

e.g. if I eat all carbs or all protein or all fat (and for weeks at a time I have tried to maximize each just to see what would happen) - each of these compositional makeups would have drastically different effects. the Human body is not a caloric bomb(not even close). it is a complex machine with levers and trap doors, chutes and ladders, and a logic of its own. energy balance is an important metric, and it has its domain of relevance. and for many reasons, it is often times not enough information, in order to resolve many questions.

No disagreement there, but what does that have to do with fasted training being important for fat loss?

The evidence is that while fasted training may be important for metabolic flexibility, or just a preference, it's not that important for fat loss.
 

Alaska80

Level 6 Valued Member
This has been pretty much debunked at this point.

It's your net energy balance that matters the most.

If you prefer training fasted, that's fine, but the evidence is that it's not that important when it comes to fat loss vs just being in a deficit.
Training fasted has it purposes, especially as offwidth said, for endurance athletes. I tried training fasted for years and found that I could not lose the last bit of stubborn fat around my stomach no matter what I did. I have a clean diet so that was not the issue. Fasting everyday (16-20 hours) made me feel awful a lot of the time and I had no energy. But being the stubborn individual I am I persisted in it because I wanted to believe it would work. What I got from fasted training for so long was not a physical change (fat change) but a mental change. Mental toughness conditioning is a real thing. I have recently started eating regularly, e.g. 3 times a day and taking supplemental protein as snacks, and without changing my workouts the fat has begun to melt off. I can almost feel the fat burning. My training which has stayed the same consists primarily of pure strength, power, A+A and LISS.

Studies are important and they do have their place, but what I have found after 28 years of exploring training and nutrition is that the human body is so physiologically diverse across the human spectrum that there is no ultimate diet or eating method. You have to experiment, know yourself, and find what works best.

The hardest part about eating regularly now is that I do not want to eat, I have to force myself to eat. I really wanted IF to work as it is convenient, controlling food is not an issue for me. What is crazy though is when I force good food down my gullet, in reasonable amounts, and at regular intervals I feel amazing and like the fat burning machine is in overdrive.
 
Last edited:

Adachi

Level 6 Valued Member
No disagreement there, but what does that have to do with fasted training being important for fat loss?

The evidence is that while fasted training may be important for metabolic flexibility, or just a preference, it's not that important for fat loss.
One of the contributing factors to Glucagon signaling is low fuel levels (corollary - lowered average insulin levels).

1. tap the fuel systems, arbitrarily without a refuel
2. glucagon is deployed in response to lower serum fuel levels (corollary - lowered average insulin levels)
3. fatty acids are unpacked - per glucagon's effect on adipose
4. fatty acid breakdown fills the gap for a nominally stable rate of gluconeogenesis

the magnitude of these effects dictates their utility.
e.g.: I don't get enough of these workout-induced effects after around 48 hours of fasting. I know I'm losing a good bit of fat I used 72-hour meal timing to lose about 20 lbs of fat and a few inches off my waist in a month leading up to my weigh-in for the army. however at that point, the utility of workouts will have capped out, as I was still rowing and lifting at a moderate level, and workouts don't help me lose that much more fat in the meantime. at around 24-48 hours between meals, additional activity has a notable effect on my composition. and, not using them would mean an observably slower process than weeks where they were included.
 
Last edited:

watchnerd

Level 8 Valued Member
One of the contributing factors to Glucagon signaling is low fuel levels (corollary - lowered average insulin levels).

1. tap the fuel systems, arbitrarily without a refuel
2. glucagon is deployed in response to lower serum fuel levels (corollary - lowered average insulin levels)
3. fatty acids are unpacked - per glucagon's effect on adipose
4. fatty acid breakdown fills the gap for a nominally stable rate of gluconeogenesis

the magnitude of these effects dictates their utility.
e.g.: I don't get enough of these workout-induced effects after around 48 hours of fasting. I know I'm losing a good bit of fat I used 72-hour meal timing to lose about 20 lbs of fat and a few inches off my waist in a month leading up to my weigh-in for the army. however at that point, the utility of workouts will have capped out, as I was still rowing and lifting at a moderate level, and workouts don't help me lose that much more fat in the meantime. at around 24-48 hours between meals, additional activity has a notable effect on my composition. and, not using them would mean an observably slower process than weeks where they were included.


Well....

Here is a summary of what the science actually says:




So while the body will preferentially switch to using the most efficient energy source available (i.e. use glucose / carbs first), your body normalizes this by burning more of the 'other' energy source later. In other words, if you burn more fat during exercise, you'll burn less fat and more carbs later in the day.

The Schoenfield 2014 study backs this up, showing that between two groups of women with a 500 cal deficit, and one exercises fasted and the other fed, there was no significant difference in fat loss between the two groups.
 

watchnerd

Level 8 Valued Member
I don't keep up with the science, but I respectfully disagree. It feels right to me to go for a long, easy walk or jog on an empty stomach. "Right" here may be nothing more than I don't like walking or running with food in my belly, I realize.

-S-

The science doesn't have anything to say about what feels right for you.

If you have a preference, that's beyond the scope of the research on effectiveness for fat loss.
 

Adachi

Level 6 Valued Member
Well....

Here is a summary of what the science actually says:




So while the body will preferentially switch to using the most efficient energy source available (i.e. use glucose / carbs first), your body normalizes this by burning more of the 'other' energy source later. In other words, if you burn more fat during exercise, you'll burn less fat and more carbs later in the day.

The Schoenfield 2014 study backs this up, showing that between two groups of women with a 500 cal deficit, and one exercises fasted and the other fed, there was no significant difference in fat loss between the two groups.
HOLY GOD the carb intake was ~50% of intake? a lot of things ... a lot of carts are before horses.
that changes everything.
I guess I would offer that I am at fault for arguing from my own paradigm, of limiting carbs to much lower levels.
of course, they didn't lose a significant amount of fat over time; insulin is first and foremost anti-catabolic for all tissues.
maybe the common ground I have here (with nippard and the study authors) is that more research is needed.
 

watchnerd

Level 8 Valued Member
What I got from fasted training for so long was not a physical change (fat change) but a mental change. Mental toughness conditioning is a real thing.

Sure -- training fasted for mental toughness or to train metabolic flexibility is a different goal.
 

watchnerd

Level 8 Valued Member
HOLY GOD the carb intake was ~50% of intake? a lot of things ... a lot of carts are before horses.
that changes everything.
maybe the common ground I have here is that more research is needed.

Maybe.

But there is still not a very good mechanistic explanation for why fasted exercise should lead to anything special because:

1. Your body preferentially uses the most efficient energy source. So if you eat more carbs later (after exercise) when you feed yourself, you'll burn more carbs after that feeding and burn less fat. So it equalizes.

2. All the studies so far about intermittent fasting vs not, or Keto vs other, say that if you equalize for calories consumed, it's the net deficit that matters most.
 
Last edited:

silveraw

Level 7 Valued Member
It's your net energy balance that matters the most.
A couple interesting studies came out recently on this that looked at a LOT of health markers.
This one looked at something like 130 people over 12 months in three groups. IF, Calorie Restriction, and "usual diet". The conclusions really seem to support the narrative that the positive effects of IF are caused by CR.

This one was something like 90 people over 12 weeks and found similar results

This one is interesting because it looks at lean people and the effects of IF on them.

Fasting is a great tool, but IMO it swung into the mythical territory for a hot minute there. It works, but it is kind of like "should I use the pink hammer or the chrome hammer to build the house?" It doesn't matter as long as the house gets built. If you like the pink hammer, use the pink one.

Anyways standard disclaimer, speaking in terms of general health and fat loss. I'm not aware of even what is a good marker for measuring metabolic flexibility so am not commenting on that.
 
Top Bottom