Hi all,

I've been doing fasted cardio for the past several weeks, based solely upon the recommendations of people that visit this forum, and while I don't have any complaints regarding my progress, I am a little curious...

Is there any readily available research that would indicate that fasted cardio is more effective than any other kind of cardio? Is this conclusion based on test results, or is it an assumption derived from weight loss theory (ie, that the body will probably burn more fat if you don't give it an alternative energy source beforehand)?

There are many, many highly educated and motivated forum members here, but frankly, I doubt that anyone, no matter how perceptive, can really tell the difference between fasted and non-fasted cardio results; if you're on a calorie defecit and exercizing regularly, you're going to lose weight - end of story.

So... linkie, anyone? :tu:

Not to seem unwilling to answer your question.
But the fasted state cardio and non-fasted state cardio have been discussed into infinity (and beyond) a gazillion times already.

Just do a forum search.
Check alan aragons post too on cardio. He's a big fan of non-fasted state cardio and it's a nice read since mostly on these forums you read about fasted state followers :)

The research is done by us all, we all try things and then end up sticking with what works best for us. For me, and many many others, fasted morning cardio is the way to go.

It's as simple as that.

Exactly. Our results are the research that we need to analyze. For me fasted cardio worked fantastic.

The research is done by us all, we all try things and then end up sticking with what works best for us. For me, and many many others, fasted morning cardio is the way to go.

It's as simple as that.

I agree. That's why I think it's almost a non-issue even though we all talk about it a lot. (although it would be nice if a controlled study was done with a fasted and non-fasted group keeping all other variables the same at some point). For me, non-fasted cardio has always worked, and I don't think I'd like fasted cardio, so I have never done it. But I'm trying to cut lower than I ever have before, and I am willing to try fasted cardio if I plateau. I think everyone should just do whatever cardio they like best unless it stops being effective or results are not as good you want. Might as well try to switch it up then and see if it helps.

Exactly. Our results are the research that we need to analyze. For me fasted cardio worked fantastic.

Hi,
we should make 2 groups, with the same type of body, submit them to thesame diet and same exercise plan, one doing HIT the other doing fastedcardio and check the results in three months. Something for theChallange section ;-)
isoranger

HIIT requires too much effort so I'll never be doing that. I like cardio to be more of a 'stroll in the park' type of workout.

Not a bad idea if people were interested. But it would still be difficult to make it a really scientific study with no confounds. Everyone would have to be in same stage (cutting or bulking between the groups). Also, weight training routines, diet (calorie count and split, etc...) as well as various supplements could be very difficult to standardize.

Hi,
we should make 2 groups, with the same type of body, submit them to thesame diet and same exercise plan, one doing HIT the other doing fastedcardio and check the results in three months. Something for theChallange section ;-)
isoranger