What's Better for Fat Loss: Fast or HIIT?
On a rest day, assuming a normal lifting schedule (3-4x a week), Slow Movement ~ 2hrs and assuming we are talking the same number of calories (~ 300-350) what is better for fat loss - fast longer and miss an extra meal (lunch) or eat earlier, have the lunch and have a HIT cardio session (~ 30 min)? Is it better not to consume calories or consume and burn off? Calories are from eggs if that makes any difference.
All things being the same (burning the same amount of calories, and the end total caloric intake being the same over the 24 hour period) I don't think either is "better". Just comes down to which you would rather do.
Would not HIT help mobilize blood to the stubborn fat areas or something like that increasing fat burn? Or is there any magic in fasting longer, so fat again will burn faster/better?
The thing that burns the most fat is doing HIIT while in a fasted state. This is because both fasting and HIIT increases HGH production, whereas insulin suppresses HGH production.
I doubt fasted HIT is an option. Can't get out of work early enough for that.
Not sure how valid this is, especially for HIIT.
Originally Posted by diene
I can see the argument that low intensity cardio can mobilize more body fat in fasted situations, but glycogen dependent exercise such as HIIT won't have the same effect.
I have a very strong opinion on this that I use myself, so I am (for once) explaining my own rationale, instead of my usual devil's advocate
My number one weight loss tool is to do LISS (usually hiking or CC skiing in the winter for me) after long fasts. The reason for this is that your glycogen is already very depleted due to the fact that you haven't eaten in 18 hours. This means that there is NO LONGER any glucose left for my muscles to use for energy....glucose will ALWAYS be used preferentially before fat. (Or to go geeky, glycolytic oxidation is always preferable to beta oxidation)
On a long hike after fasting, I am literally "running on fat". I believe that this is the most primal thing one can do, because it is incredibly natural....our bodies store fat the way they do for this purpose.
A HIIT session WHILE fasted will demand glucose for its efforts (beta oxidation will not produce energy fast enough). To fill this need, the body will break down its proteins in order to supply it. In other words, you burn muscle in an attempt to make muscle. Not smart. Not to mention that you will likely put in a pretty rancid HIIT session if you do it fasted. YOu have run through your muscle rocket fuel of glycogen, so your bursts will be very short and creatine-based....after that runs out you are a slow poke, and the whole thing has defeated its own purpose.
A HIIT session should be done with a full tank to really allow for max output. Lifting or LISS is great fasted; interval training is the exception, IMO. I am more than happy to be proven wrong here, but I never touch it while fasted.
I'd definitely agree with this. I also find HIIT to really blunt my appetite on the day I do it, but the next day or two I am much hungrier. So I usually do it the day before I do my lifting, which helps me eat be able to eat more after lifting and less on non-lifting days. I don't know if that's necessarily a good strategy, but it works fine for me.
Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus
For me lifting is dangerous when I am fasted >10 hrs. Unfocused and uncoordinated, tend to drop things, which is not a good news when handling plates and bars.
I managed without lunch, so I will just walk my last 30 min segment home and bypass the gym. I am interested to see the impact on appetite and lifting tomorrow. Today was bearable, I would estimate ~ 20 hrs or so break between food intakes.
All the research I have read agrees with this also.
Originally Posted by luravua