Incline with pack weight VS Running for distance (2miles)

[P Carter]

Lot to digest in that one, I'll do my best to touch on everything:

Regarding fasted cardio, I'll refer you to the massive body of research showing that it is identical to fed cardio for weight loss. Not worth anyone's time to dispute that fact unless you have peer reviewed data claiming otherwise. I'm simply the messenger on that one...

Now, to your VO2 max comments, which are very good btw.

VO2 max is not only the correct variable, but arguably the ONLY variable that matters when attempting to quantify "aerobic capacity" AND "aerobic endurance", regardless of where on the incremental scale of exercise the task at hand is (walking vs running vs hiking with weight etc). It's of critical importance because it gives us an objective reading on how much Oxygen the human body is capable of moving per minute...which is quite literally the definition of aerobic capacity...

If you take an athlete who has a VO2 max in the 70s (very high), they will also perform more efficiently (lower RPE, lower HR, etc) during lower intensity aerobic exercise compared to subjects with lower VO2 maxes. Again, this has been studied.

Without going down the rabbit hole of advanced statistics, a quick analysis of covariance eliminates any significant effects of varied body mass in terms of calculating trends in VO2 max during statistical analysis of any solid peer reviewed research.

So how do we get a higher VO2 max...well, MOST of the literature points to focusing your training volume near or at your HR Max for 3-5min intervals at a 1:1 work/rest ratio...which is why I made the recommendation of HIIT style training.

THAT SAID...

You touched on the hereditary nature of VO2 max, which is likely beyond the scope of this thread but an interesting topic nonetheless...

SO, I'll link one of the craziest case studies I've ever read, and it actually DISPUTES my claim that higher intensity exercise is better for maximizing VO2 max improvements. I have a degree in Exercise Science, so I spend my downtime picking through this stuff lol. It's fundamentally important to examine the entire body of data, and what this researcher found in his work with sprint cyclists is at least worth mentioning:

How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study - SimpliFaster

For years we’ve been told that VO2 max is largely fixed, largely genetic, and largely untrainable. To the contrary, exercise physiologist and endurance sports coach Alan Couzens makes a case for the trainability of VO2 max, based on real-world experience.

simplifaster.com

He has personally seen the most dramatic jumps in VO2 max in athletes that put in most of their work volume in the 65-80% HR zones...(mind you the LISS is performed between 50 and 65% HR Max)

NOTE *The 65-80% zone meshes quite nicely with a mixed terrain weighted ruck*

I'll add a disclaimer that there is absolutely nothing wrong with LISS cardio, and it's obviously wide ranging benefits (mental and physical)...that said, to claim that it is better for weight loss, or building aerobic capacity is just flat out wrong for the vast majority of people.

In my own training program, LISS is a recovery aid and for brain maintenance. That's it.

Long winded but this is my jam, hopefully it helps a fella or two make sense of the plethora of training info floating around the internet these days!

Appreciate the conversation.

Is your takeaway that most people looking to increase their endurance should perform most of their training at 65% to 85% of max HR? I would say that, if that is the message, that's the complete opposite of many (most?) endurance-based athletes, which focus first on a LISS aerobic base and then layer performance-geared, specific V02Max workouts on top of that. (Recognizing that we've drifted well away from the initial question, which was weight loss, to which I think we'd agree the answer is: do what you can do consistently, without injury, focusing on strength and endurance. Chris seems to have hit this concisely.)

As to the linked study, wouldn't you expect to see the largest jump in V02 max in athletes that do the work that is geared to improve that particular variable? It seems that result is almost obvious.

In any case, appreciate the replies and teh conversation.

 

[*zap*]

SMH

This is why people spin their wheels when trying to get into shape.

There is ZERO difference between fasted cardio and fed cardio regarding weight loss. None.

No legitimate and trusted strength and conditioning lab team has ever found one iota of a difference. Yet here we are on the internet listening to someone say "yeah but me and my friends/family lost weight while doing it".

Cool, show me the research. Anecdotal evidence has next to no application value, especially when you recommend something as superior when the data shows otherwise...

Fat loss is simple thermodynamics. Calories in vs. calories out. If you are burning more calories during the course of a day than you are consuming, you will lose weight. Timing of those calories is irrelevant.

And daily LISS as the best base for a training program and building aerobic capacity? For who? An 80 year old recovering from a broken hip?

Here's a study indicating that your stance on LISS is also incorrect. VO2 max improvements (metric used to measure aerobic capacity) are most dramatic and rapid with intense exercise, not low to moderate.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17414804/

I don't want to come across as a dick, but digging your heels in and posting up unfounded advice doesn't help anyone.

Providing evidence based training protocols for specific goals DOES.

So, you have tried fasted low intensity cardio for 45 days straight while keeping all other variables the same? You never answered that ?

I have and others that I know have and it is very effective at reducing gender specific body fat and also enhancing aerobic capacity although that is another subject entirely.

Entire classes studying for degrees in fitness have done fasted liss for 30-45 days and seen that it works for fat loss.......that is real life results not some study. If you have never done it you really have no basis for your opinion other than what someone else says.

Daily liss for aerobic capacity is advocated by the premier coaches for endurance activities/sports. That is a fact, it is also a fact that they advocate fasted liss for endurance.

 

[Bhanes]

10Hill sprints, 2-3x a week, maybe a longer run a week but I would rather jam needles under my fingernails than run long distance. Running long distance also raises cortisol levels which increase fat. That’s why marathon runners are often “skinny/fat”, I am by no means an expert on the topic!

 

[ianpadron]

So, you have tried fasted low intensity cardio for 45 days straight while keeping all other variables the same? You never answered that ?

I have and others that I know have and it is very effective at reducing gender specific body fat and also enhancing aerobic capacity although that is another subject entirely.

Entire classes studying for degrees in fitness have done fasted liss for 30-45 days and seen that it works.......that is real life results not some study. If you have never done it you really have no basis for your opinion other than what someone else says.

Daily liss for aerobic capacity is advocated by the premier coaches for endurance activities/sports. That is a fact, it is also a fact that they advocate fasted liss for endurance.

I'm sure it does work lol, but it sure as hell doesn't work any better than fed cardio...you can't cheat the laws of thermodynamics. That is my point entirely. The caloric expenditure of LISS cardio is so insanely low that it is wild you're even talking about it as the secret sauce to weight loss. Walk for 45 min to burn 180 calories? Lol no freaking way.

I won't be trying your method anytime soon because I don't have any weight to lose, nor do I need to try something to know if it works or doesn't work...that's the beauty of peer reviewed research, you can find the optimal approach without wasting 45 days of your training life.

I'll say this one more time, SHOW ME THE STUDIES, where subjects lost more weight doing fasted cardio compared to fed cardio.

 

[ianpadron]

Appreciate the conversation.

Is your takeaway that most people looking to increase their endurance should perform most of their training at 65% to 85% of max HR? I would say that, if that is the message, that's the complete opposite of many (most?) endurance-based athletes, which focus first on a LISS aerobic base and then layer performance-geared, specific V02Max workouts on top of that. (Recognizing that we've drifted well away from the initial question, which was weight loss, to which I think we'd agree the answer is: do what you can do consistently, without injury, focusing on strength and endurance. Chris seems to have hit this concisely.)

As to the linked study, wouldn't you expect to see the largest jump in V02 max in athletes that do the work that is geared to improve that particular variable? It seems that result is almost obvious.

In any case, appreciate the replies and teh conversation.

I'm not aware of a single group of endurance athletes who do most of their training at less than 65% of HR max. LISS is sub 65%, like walking. I think you're confusing LISS with LSD (Long Slow Distance) which is performed at 80% MHR.

On that note, I would go so far as to guess that next to no endurance athletes can even make adaptations below the 65% threshold (roughly speaking)

So yes, my takeaway is that if you are seeking to build your aerobic capacity, LISS is not the answer, spending time north of 65% of your HR max is.

Oh, and that fasted cardio is a stupid fad, no different than keto, paleo, bulletproof coffee, etc.

 

[ianpadron]

So, you have tried fasted low intensity cardio for 45 days straight while keeping all other variables the same? You never answered that ?

I have and others that I know have and it is very effective at reducing gender specific body fat and also enhancing aerobic capacity although that is another subject entirely.

Entire classes studying for degrees in fitness have done fasted liss for 30-45 days and seen that it works for fat loss.......that is real life results not some study. If you have never done it you really have no basis for your opinion other than what someone else says.

Daily liss for aerobic capacity is advocated by the premier coaches for endurance activities/sports. That is a fact, it is also a fact that they advocate fasted liss for endurance.

Your lack of comprehension and disdain towards peer reviewed research makes it clear that this conversation is going nowhere fast.

"If you have never done it you really have no basis for your opinion other than what someone else says" LMAO now that right there is funny.

 

[*zap*]

I will say it one more time, if you have not done it then you do not have the basis to actually say if it works or not. There are many real life examples of fasted liss producing great results for reducing gender specific body fat levels.

If 180 calories comes right off your actual body fat rather than 400 calories coming from glucose stores guess what reduces your body fat more?

I will say again that multiple people I personally know who have 4 year degrees in fitness all did approx 30 days of 1 hour fasted cardio daily as a class project and the whole class experienced more body fat loss than when they did a fed 30 day period.

Now, if you have some kind of decent aerobic capacity then you can certainly burn more than 200 calories in an hour of liss because your pace will be greater than someone whose aerobic capacity sucks....I will go farther and say that unless your training low intensity you probably do not have good aerobic capacity.

You can quote all the studies you want to quote and it will not change two facts:
My personal experience doing fasted liss daily has been very good gender specific body fat loss as compared to doing the same exercise feed.
You have no personal experience on this subject but you think your an expert.

As far as fasted liss for endurance this is from one of the premier sources on how to train endurance:




You might try a nice daily walk for an hour before you eat in the morning while keeping the hr in the low zone 2 range for a month and see what happens.......

Me, I am just an old man who has a very low resting heart rate, I get my heart rate up over 160 doing a set of 5 bicep curls (among other things) and I don't even breath hard after.....my max heart rate according to the 'studies' is 155 obviously my max hr is well above 160............my resting is more than 15 beats less than the studies say it should be. All I have done for the last 12 months is fasted liss. Never any type of hitt other than high hr from strength training sets.

I will be doing extended time sessions of high heart rate in the coming months, probably 10% of cardio volume but most of that will be muscular endurance based.

 

[*zap*]

I'm not aware of a single group of endurance athletes who do most of their training at less than 65% of HR max. LISS is sub 65%, like walking. I think you're confusing LISS with LSD (Long Slow Distance) which is performed at 80% MHR.

On that note, I would go so far as to guess that next to no endurance athletes can even make adaptations below the 65% threshold (roughly speaking)

So yes, my takeaway is that if you are seeking to build your aerobic capacity, LISS is not the answer, spending time north of 65% of your HR max is.

Oh, and that fasted cardio is a stupid fad, no different than keto, paleo, bulletproof coffee, etc.

 

[ianpadron]

View attachment 267141



View attachment 267149

Mind sharing with us what book that is out of? Because the NSCA Essentials of S&C will tell you otherwise.

Also, WTF is gender specific body fat loss? Saying shit like that makes it glaringly obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anecdote anecdote anecdote...zero peer reviewed research from any reputable journal. "Yeah but it worked for me" will get you laughed out of any group of people who actually know what they're doing...in any field tbh.

As for your 180 calories of fat vs 400 calories of glucose comment...jesus christ lol. If calories are controlled and you don't make that deficit up...you're going to lose more fat in the situation that causes you to dig a deeper caloric deficit.

This is elementary nutrition dude and you are saying it's all smoke and mirrors lol.

A 3500 calorie deficit will lead to 1 pound of fat being lost, doesn't matter how ya get there partner. Don't get upset with me, I didn't make up the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[ianpadron]

FYI this is the book that every single Strength and Conditioning coach in the world is tested on before becoming NSCA certified...would like to hear about the "premier coaches" you keep alluding too.

 

[*zap*]

gender specific body fat is areas that men and women tend to accumulate body fat first.

that is a pretty common term.

calories in-out is bs. Diet content matters more than # of calories or premier athletes would get all their calories from refined sugar since # of calories is all that matters. just eat sugar and nothing else....

if your training hard you need adequate nutrition and your burning of fat should come from exercise so your caloric intake remains the same (what you need) and fat loss comes from expenditure. That is completely different from not having what you need to fuel/refuel your body.

if calories in/out was all that mattered then different marco % diets would not produce different results. But we know that they do produce different results.

I think if you focused less on how wrong other folks are and how right you are you might understand that everyone's viewpoint may have validity. You do not see me saying how wrong anything is but simply trying to explain my viewpoint.

 

[*zap*]

I do not really give a shit if you want to laugh at me saying what worked for me while you expound on what works better although you have never done it....

This is really not a personal issue although you want to make it one.....

 

[ianpadron]

gender specific body fat is areas that men and women tend to accumulate body fat first.

that is a pretty common term.

calories in-out is bs. Diet content matters more than # of calories or premier athletes would get all their calories from refined sugar since # of calories is all that matters. just eat sugar and nothing else....

if your training hard you need adequate nutrition and your burning of fat should come from exercise so your caloric intake remains the same (what you need) and fat loss comes from expenditure. That is completely different from not having what you need to fuel/refuel your body.

if calories in/out was all that mattered then different marco % diets would not produce different results. But we know that they do produce different results.

I think if you focused less on how wrong other folks are and how right you are you might understand that everyone's viewpoint may have validity. You do not see me saying how wrong anything is but simply trying to explain my viewpoint.

I'm not the one making recommendations to others based off anecdotal experience that contradicts the overall body of research.

Your method worked for you...cool.

Claiming that it's going to work for the OP asking which approach is better, not cool. That's what makes it personal.

My method works for me and is rooted in science. I've provided citations for every claim I've made.

And I get what you meant by "gender specific fat" but claiming fasted LISS is somehow gender specific is next-level absurdity.

 

[*zap*]

Fasted liss is not gender specific, it reduces gender specific body fat %.

 

[ianpadron]

gender specific body fat is areas that men and women tend to accumulate body fat first.

that is a pretty common term.

calories in-out is bs. Diet content matters more than # of calories or premier athletes would get all their calories from refined sugar since # of calories is all that matters. just eat sugar and nothing else....

if your training hard you need adequate nutrition and your burning of fat should come from exercise so your caloric intake remains the same (what you need) and fat loss comes from expenditure. That is completely different from not having what you need to fuel/refuel your body.

if calories in/out was all that mattered then different marco % diets would not produce different results. But we know that they do produce different results.

I think if you focused less on how wrong other folks are and how right you are you might understand that everyone's viewpoint may have validity. You do not see me saying how wrong anything is but simply trying to explain my viewpoint.

CICO is not BS with regards to weight loss lol. Not even close.

Body comp and overall health, sure, there's some nuance there, but no one is making the case of eating fruit loops 3 meals a day to lose weight.

If your diet is healthy and you are eating in a deficit, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT.

Doesn't matter if you do your exercise fasted, fed, naked, clothed, upside down, or on Mars...a caloric deficit is a caloric deficit.

If you want to do your own thing, please, feel free, I'd just ask that you abstain from making recommendations based of off anecdotal experience without citing a massive disclaimer that you're about to go against every principle of the performance sports establishment.

 

[ianpadron]

Fasted liss is not gender specific, it reduces gender specific body fat %.

Subcutaneous? Visceral?

Chicks will only burn fat off their hips and butts, dudes only off their guts?

What are you trying to say?

 

[*zap*]

CICO is not BS with regards to weight loss lol. Not even close.

Body comp and overall health, sure, there's some nuance there, but no one is making the case of eating fruit loops 3 meals a day to lose weight.

If your diet is healthy and you are eating in a deficit, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT.

Doesn't matter if you do your exercise fasted, fed, naked, clothed, upside down, or on Mars...a caloric deficit is a caloric deficit.

If you want to do your own thing, please, feel free, I'd just ask that you abstain from making recommendations based of off anecdotal experience without citing a massive disclaimer that you're about to go against every principle of the performance sports establishment.

I thought all that mattered was calories in vs calories out? Seems that some other things matter also.

The things I have posted do not go against everything. They are actually followed and acknowledged by many people who have experience and not just book knowledge. Being how your absolutely wrong about so much, like calories in/out is all that matters you might abstain from posting misinfo yourself.

If your at a caloric deficit and training very hard your just as likely to loose muscle mass as body fat. Yes you will loose weight but I never said weight, I said body fat.


I think your not really paying attention to what I am saying because your too busy being correct.

I do not care about weight loss, I care about body fat loss and lean muscle mass gains because that is what helps my performance and gives me better quality of life.

 

[*zap*]

Subcutaneous? Visceral?

Chicks will only burn fat off their hips and butts, dudes only off their guts?

What are you trying to say?

Not trying to say anything, I am saying that the hard to loose gender specific body fat gets gone from doing long duration fasted low intensity cardio. That would be noticeable after substantial body fat loss when all that remains is the hard to loose gender specific areas of body fat.

 

[Alaskan808]

I tried looking. Didn’t see anything on it.

what is better to lose weight/build endurance?

thanks for insight

Do both, I do both when going for sheep on top of other things

 

[ianpadron]

I usually assume that a nutrient rich, high protein diet is the default setting anytime we're discussing which training modality is advantageous...that's why I keep saying if you are in a deficit you will lose fat. Sure, I guess you could lose muscle too if you're eating like a slob and not lifting, but that's not an assumption I make when talking about maximizing human performance.

Apologies if I was unclear on my assumptions, it would be incredibly drawn out to state every working assumption that's a part of each subsequent recommendation.

Figured it was safe to assume we weren't running on skittles and frosted flakes...but here we are.

I'll leave the party with a meta-analysis which again shows no statistical difference in weight loss between fed and fasted groups

Effect of Overnight Fasted Exercise on Weight Loss and Body Composition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

It remains unclear whether training in fasted compared to fed states leads to greater weight loss and whether this practice results in beneficial or detrimental changes in body composition. We conducted a systematic review to examine the effect of overnight-fasted versus fed exercise on weight...

www.mdpi.com

You stick with your "many people" and "premier coaches", I'll continue to roll with the brilliant minds at the NSCA.

Peace, love, and tie-dye.