# Metabolism kick-start Question....



## danchubbz (Jan 6, 2007)

I understand that your first meal of the day kick-starts your metabolism after your over-night fast, however does your first training session (cardio) kick-start it also if I trained on an empty stomach in the same way as your first meal would?

Also when I do cardio on an empty stomach I do take BCAA's and glutamine before so would this also assist in kick-starting my metabolism along with cardio?

Cheers.


----------



## goandykid (Jan 6, 2007)

I never really bought into this fasting, then cardio, or tricking your metabolism, or eating a huge amount then fasting. Why not jsut eat less?


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 6, 2007)

goandykid said:


> I never really bought into this fasting, then cardio, or tricking your metabolism, or eating a huge amount then fasting. Why not jsut eat less?



That doesn't answer my question!!


----------



## P-funk (Jan 6, 2007)

training on an empty stomach doesn't make much sense to me.

at the end of the day, it comes down to calories.

If you and I get on a treadmill and do 20min. of cardio and we both burn 250cals, does it really matter if I ate and you didn't?  In the end we both burned 250cals.

Now, flip that and say that I eat, so I have more usable energy and you do not eat, so you have less energy to output.

Lets say for 40min you are working at a 5cal per minute pace.  At the end, you have 200cals burned.

Now, I ate a small meal and got some energy in me and I can come in and do 40min at a 10cal per min. pace.  At the end of that session I have burned 400 cals.

400 > 200

answer your question?


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 6, 2007)

P-funk said:


> training on an empty stomach doesn't make much sense to me.
> 
> at the end of the day, it comes down to calories.
> 
> ...




Afraid u haven't mate, my question was does cardio kick start your metabolism the same way as your first meal does?!


----------



## P-funk (Jan 6, 2007)

Think about what you are asking.....Does cardio kick start your metabolism?

Ofcourse it has to!  How the hell else would you be able to perform the work your asking your body to perform if your metabolism wasn't doing something to produce energy.

I was saying that to do it on an empty stomach would not yield the same amount of intensity as it would if you were to fuel yourself and then go and work hard.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Jan 6, 2007)

Yet if you eat, you may gain back the extra calories you lost from the higher intenisty.

As an incentive not to do cardio on an empty stomach, I remember CowPimp saying something about risking losing some muscle mass. Perhaps it had something to do with going into a catabolic state when the body doesn't have fuel available? I don't know specifics and I might be completely wrong, but hopefully someone can help me out.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 6, 2007)

Squaggleboggin said:


> Yet if you eat, you may gain back the extra calories you lost from the higher intenisty.
> 
> As an incentive not to do cardio on an empty stomach, I remember CowPimp saying something about risking losing some muscle mass. Perhaps it had something to do with going into a catabolic state when the body doesn't have fuel available? I don't know specifics and I might be completely wrong, but hopefully someone can help me out.



how so?  Not after you factor in EPOC which is going to burn however many calories (it seems to change with every study).

Also, if you are on a diet in a caloric deficit, you are not going to be gaining back anything.

If you and I eat 2000 cals a day and you do cardio on an empty stomach and burn 200 cals and I do cardio after a small meal and burn 400 cals, I have created a larger deficit.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Jan 6, 2007)

P-funk said:


> how so?  Not after you factor in EPOC which is going to burn however many calories (it seems to change with every study).
> 
> Also, if you are on a diet in a caloric deficit, you are not going to be gaining back anything.
> 
> If you and I eat 2000 cals a day and you do cardio on an empty stomach and burn 200 cals and I do cardio after a small meal and burn 400 cals, I have created a larger deficit.



'Gain back' in the sense that you could've eaten an extra 200 calories, yet burned an additional 400 calories compared to me. But I forgot that, in this case, I would simply eat afterwards the same 200 calories you did, and you'd still be in more of a deficit than I would.

Basically, I assumed I would skip the meal you ate entirely; I forgot it would be after the cardio instead of non-existent. Silly mistake.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 6, 2007)

Not much difficulty here.  Your sole purpose for losing weight permanently is to make your body better at burning calories by improving hormonal profile and shit like that.  You're not going to do that by eating nothing and running like a pussy, you do that by busting your ass at full intensity, something you are not going to do on an empty stomach.  You may drop the weight, but it comes right back on once you increase cals or lower intensity.

Make a better body and it will stay off.


----------



## tucker01 (Jan 6, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> Not much difficulty here.  Your sole purpose for losing weight permanently is to make your body better at burning calories by improving hormonal profile and shit like that.  You're not going to do that by eating nothing and running like a pussy, you do that by busting your ass at full intensity, something you are not going to do on an empty stomach.  You may drop the weight, but it comes right back on once you increase cals or lower intensity.
> 
> Make a better body and it will stay off.



That is good stuff right there.


----------



## G-man (Jan 6, 2007)

danchubbz said:


> I understand that your first meal of the day kick-starts your metabolism after your over-night fast, however does your first training session (cardio) kick-start it also if I trained on an empty stomach in the same way as your first meal would?
> 
> Also when I do cardio on an empty stomach I do take BCAA's and glutamine before so would this also assist in kick-starting my metabolism along with cardio?
> 
> Cheers.



Lets clarify the question;
#1. Cardio revs up your metabolism it doesnt start it.
#2. An empty stomach 1st thing in the morning is not the same as an empty stomach in the afternoon.

Now the answer to the question I think you are asking.
Cardio 1st thing in the morning on an empty stomach is the best time, why you ask? because glycogen levels in the liver are completeley depleted, therefore theoretically you are utilizing fat stores for energy, ie.. burning fat instead of glycogen. 

The only thing eating does is start the digestive process, and in doing so raises your metabolism until the food you consume is digested, then your metabolism slows back down. This is why you should eat  5 or 6 smaller meals every 3 to 4 hours to keep your metabolism going, instead of 3 big meals.

So if you are looking to cut fat then do cardio first thing in the morning on an empty stomach, if you are looking to permanently increase you metabolism, then 5 to 6 meals and increase activity, (including cardio & weight training).

*Never weight train on an empty stomach 1st thing in the morning.*


----------



## DanOz (Jan 6, 2007)

If you do cardio on an empty stomach 1st thing in the morning, it is my understanding that the body will access stored fat reserves for energy, but it will also break down muscle mass for the same purpose.


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 7, 2007)

DanOz said:


> If you do cardio on an empty stomach 1st thing in the morning, it is my understanding that the body will access stored fat reserves for energy, but it will also break down muscle mass for the same purpose.



Yes I agree and even though I really don't want to lose lean muscle mass I still really wanna lower my bf, this is why I take glutamine and BCAA's before cardio first thing in the morning so help prevent it.

IMO doing cardio on an empty stomach with these supplements gives me what I need to maximise cutting fat and maintaining lean muscle mass.

Also regarding cals burned during cardio it doesn't really matter if I do it on empty stomack or not because I'm following a certain cardio program on the treadmill, so I will be running the exact pace and distance regardless if I have food in my belly or not.


----------



## KarlW (Jan 7, 2007)

danchubbz said:


> Yes I agree and even though I really don't want to lose lean muscle mass I still really wanna lower my bf, this is why I take glutamine and BCAA's before cardio first thing in the morning so help prevent it.
> 
> IMO doing cardio on an empty stomach with these supplements gives me what I need to maximise cutting fat and maintaining lean muscle mass.
> 
> Also regarding cals burned during cardio it doesn't really matter if I do it on empty stomack or not because I'm following a certain cardio program on the treadmill, so I will be running the exact pace and distance regardless if I have food in my belly or not.


 
So you asked the question and now you've answered it yourself?

Actually I like P's argument. 


Scenario #1: cardio first thing on empty stomach. It might burn more fat or whatever because I haven't just eaten, but isn't the meal I have after it going to go straight back there (as fat)? Also, because I'm on an empty stomach I'm not going to have much energy so I may burn 200 cals (just say).

Scenario #2: Eat meal #1 then cardio a short while after (allowing enough time for digestion to start etc). Sure, I may be burning off the meal I just ate, but then I don't eat for a while so my body is burning fat for the next 2-3 hours. And, because I have energy when I do the cardio I may raise the intensity or duration and burn more cals.

Honestly though, it's neither here nor there, and as P said, it's a simpler equation of cals in vs cals out.


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 7, 2007)

KarlW said:


> So you asked the question and now you've answered it yourself?
> 
> Actually I like P's argument.
> 
> ...



No my question was does cardio kick-start your metabolisam and I that got answered, then the debate moved from pros and cons of cardio on an empty stomach.

Also u said if u ate b4 cardio u wouldn't eat after which IMO is crazy u should always eat after u exercise.


----------



## KarlW (Jan 7, 2007)

Why?


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 7, 2007)

KarlW said:


> Why?



Because that's when your body needs food the most to replemish and repair after hiving it an ass kicking in the gym.

Also right after you train your body will burn through your PWO meal like a furnace so u would get almost a free meal in a sense making it easier in the long run to maintain your diet!


----------



## bjz (Jan 7, 2007)

When I was younger(much younger ) I didn't understand that you must eat before and after you workout.  If you have enough to give you the fuel you need for an awesome workout then you will give your muscles a good workout.  You want to build more muscle right?  So you need the protein and carbs after like has been said.  Your body will be more efficient at burning fat the whole day especially since you are giving your body an opportunity to build the most muscle possible.  I have always have been active but had gained alot of weight.  I still have 80 to lose. Hate to mention that.  I eat most of my carbs before and after my workouts. 

I do more cardio than those of you who don't have so much fat to get off and are mostly just looking to build up the muscle .


----------



## KarlW (Jan 7, 2007)

danchubbz said:


> Because that's when your body needs food the most to replemish and repair after hiving it an ass kicking in the gym.
> 
> Also right after you train your body will burn through your PWO meal like a furnace so u would get almost a free meal in a sense making it easier in the long run to maintain your diet!


 
We talking cardio right? What's the point of doing cardio then eating straight after it? Isn't that just the reverse argument of eating then doing cardio? Either way you burn what you just ate or replace the burnt cals with a meal.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Jan 7, 2007)

KarlW said:


> Either way you burn what you just ate or replace the burnt cals with a meal.



Only sort of, though.

Eat first, burn more calories than you ate because you had a lot of energy during the workout and have a much lower risk of losing LBM.

Eat after, burn less calories than you ate because you didn't have the energy during the workout and have a much higher risk of losing LBM.

That's how I look at it. I mean, if you don't eat before the cardio or after, when are you going to eat?


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 8, 2007)

KarlW said:


> We talking cardio right? What's the point of doing cardio then eating straight after it? Isn't that just the reverse argument of eating then doing cardio? Either way you burn what you just ate or replace the burnt cals with a meal.



Cardio on empty stomach means you go straight into burning your fat stores which is what I want to do.

U still gotta eat approx 6 meals a day if u are following an intensive training routine so it just makes good sense to have straight after any type of exercise, cardio or weights when your body needs it the most and is at its best in burning it up, I'm still gonna be pushing for the same amount of cals at the end of the day regardless.

Who told not to eat after cardio, that is bad advice my friend.


----------



## KarlW (Jan 8, 2007)

> so it just makes good sense to have straight after any type of exercise, cardio or weights when your body needs it the most and is at its best in burning it up


Weights yes because you are looking to shuttle protein to the muscles ASAP to begin the repair (building) process. But why cardio? What is your logic?

It's a silly argument anyway. Eat your 6 meals a day with however many cals you have and do some exercise somewhere. Period. If you think that exercising on an empty stomach is the way to go then do what you want.


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 8, 2007)

yeah cardio on an empty stomach IMO gives me the best results when cutting but I realise different techniques work better for different people.

and yes I know after weight training your body will burn up the cals more then after cardio but I still push myself fairly hard when doing cardio so my muscles will certainly need refueling and repairing. I'm definately not one who thinks cardio falls under walking on a treadmill for 30 mins on a slight incline!!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 8, 2007)

danchubbz said:


> Cardio on empty stomach means you go straight into burning your fat stores which is what I want to do.



No it doesn't.  Unless you are on a keto diet, you will burn glycogen which is just the stored form of carbohydrate.  Your body holds about 2000 cals of glycogen. Burning fat is based on your ability to release it which, in turn, is based on the energy system you are using.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 8, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> No it doesn't.  Unless you are on a keto diet, you will burn glycogen which is just the stored form of carbohydrate.  Your body holds about 2000 cals of glycogen. Burning fat is based on your ability to release it which, in turn, is based on the energy system you are using.



and, even if you release it, it still needs to be transported away from the fat cell  so that it can be used for fuel.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 8, 2007)

also, what substrate you use is going to depend on your exercise intensity.


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 8, 2007)

P-funk said:


> and, even if you release it, it still needs to be transported away from the fat cell  so that it can be used for fuel.



so what's the best method?


----------



## P-funk (Jan 8, 2007)

danchubbz said:


> so what's the best method?



If there were a best method people wouldn't be so fat.

It comes down to proper caloric intake, proper macronutrient intake, proper training and enough energy expenditure to create metabolic disturbance.


----------



## KOIronclub51 (Jan 8, 2007)

this may sound like a dumb question.... but since food can jump start your metabolism.. cant water do the same thing. because when im in a hurry thats usually all i can grab


----------



## ABCs (Jan 8, 2007)

If I may add some light on this topic... today I didn't have an apetite when I woke up. I then tried to go and run an intense workout like I have been doing and let me just say... It was FAR from stellar. I was fatigued almost instantly, I felt like shit, and my body hated me. Even if you eat a very small amount 20 - 30 min before you workout, it will help so much more. 

Better yet, how about YOU give it a try. Don't eat when you wake up then go try to pull of an amazing workout, see how it uhm works out. Make a mental note of it. Then, the very next day eat a short while before you work out and see how your session goes. Then make a note of that. I will guarantee you the later will provide a much more intensive workout. Regardless, give it a try and let us know which one was better for YOU. Because after all, no one knows your body better than yourself, right?


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Jan 9, 2007)

KOIronclub51 said:


> this may sound like a dumb question.... but since food can jump start your metabolism.. cant water do the same thing. because when im in a hurry thats usually all i can grab



If you drink cold water, I guess some energy needs to be used up in order to raise its temperature to make it useful. But that's heat energy, which is converted from other sources. Since it has no calories, I'm guessing it's not going to actually start your metabolism, but I could be wrong.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 9, 2007)

the amount of energy used to heat up cold water isn't going to do much in terms of fat loss.  I don't see to many people getting lean on cold water.

You need to be more prepared with your meals.  That is it.  Plain and simple.


----------



## Gazhole (Jan 9, 2007)

P-funk said:


> I don't see to many people getting lean on cold water.



If only.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Jan 9, 2007)

P-funk said:


> the amount of energy used to heat up cold water isn't going to do much in terms of fat loss.  I don't see to many people getting lean on cold water.



I wasn't implying it would. I'm just too used to being perhaps a little too precise at times.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 9, 2007)

Squaggleboggin said:


> I wasn't implying it would. I'm just too used to being perhaps a little too precise at times.



Oh, I know you weren't implying that.

I was making the statement to the original poster.  I was just to lazy to quote him.


----------



## ABCs (Jan 10, 2007)

P-funk said:


> Oh, I know you weren't implying that.
> 
> I was making the statement to the original poster.  I was just to lazy to quote him.



Too lazy? You have the back of an Ox and your too lazy to press a quote button?


----------



## P-funk (Jan 10, 2007)

ABCs said:


> Too lazy? You have the back of an Ox and your too lazy to press a quote button?



yuor quote was on the previous page.  So to be fair, I would have had to press the previous page button and then the quote button!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 10, 2007)

P-funk said:


> yuor quote was on the previous page.  So to be fair, I would have had to press the previous page button and then the quote button!



And then type out a response.  This isn't a 12 step program, it's real life, n*gga.


----------



## CowPimp (Jan 10, 2007)

I've read studies suggesting that EPOC can be as small as 30 calories.  I've also seen studies to suggest that overall caloric expenditure increases by several hundred calories the day following a high intensity exercise bout.  The variance in studies is ridiculous.  I don't really know what to believe.  

It seems like the additional expenditure is more a function of tissue recovery than EPOC, because it does appear that several hundred calories per day is more accurate.  All I can tell you is leaps and bounds faster than it was before I started lifting weights, and it was still leaps and bounds faster when I wasn't doing conditioning work as seriously as I am right now.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 10, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> I've read studies suggesting that EPOC can be as small as 30 calories.  I've also seen studies to suggest that overall caloric expenditure increases by several hundred calories the day following a high intensity exercise bout.  The variance in studies is ridiculous.  I don't really know what to believe.
> 
> It seems like the additional expenditure is more a function of tissue recovery than EPOC, because it does appear that several hundred calories per day is more accurate.  All I can tell you is leaps and bounds faster than it was before I started lifting weights, and it was still leaps and bounds faster when I wasn't doing conditioning work as seriously as I am right now.



yea, it is crazy!

I have an 18 page research review on EPOC.  Emailing it out now...


----------



## CowPimp (Jan 10, 2007)

P-funk said:


> yea, it is crazy!
> 
> I have an 18 page research review on EPOC.  Emailing it out now...



Those couple of studies you sent me seem to be in agreement with what I read in my nutrition textbook (Yes, they had a good discussion on various exercise modalities to improve body composition).  They basically suggest that although the EPOC is greater in higher intensity activities, overall caloric expenditure during the exercise itself seems to be of greater importance.

This is something the needs to be researched heavily in my opinion.  Really, what it comes down to is research methods.  There should not be such inconsistency in research results.  Empirically it would appear that EPOC is more significant than they suggest.  Also, there are studies like the one mentioned in the other e-mail you sent me regarding power athletes and steady state aerobic exercise, which suggest that high intensity interval training has a greater effect on body composition than aerobic exercise.

This is going to be a big one for a while.


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 11, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> Those couple of studies you sent me seem to be in agreement with what I read in my nutrition textbook (Yes, they had a good discussion on various exercise modalities to improve body composition).  They basically suggest that although the EPOC is greater in higher intensity activities, overall caloric expenditure during the exercise itself seems to be of greater importance.
> 
> This is something the needs to be researched heavily in my opinion.  Really, what it comes down to is research methods.  There should not be such inconsistency in research results.  Empirically it would appear that EPOC is more significant than they suggest.  Also, there are studies like the one mentioned in the other e-mail you sent me regarding power athletes and steady state aerobic exercise, which suggest that high intensity interval training has a greater effect on body composition than aerobic exercise.
> 
> This is going to be a big one for a while.




Have u got much research u could post regarding this. I'd pretty interested to see it if u have.

Cheers.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 11, 2007)

danchubbz said:


> Have u got much research u could post regarding this. I'd pretty interested to see it if u have.
> 
> Cheers.



all the research that i send these guys is PDF.  I can't post PDFs on this site.

you can PM me your email addy and I will send them out to you if you want them.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 11, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> Those couple of studies you sent me seem to be in agreement with what I read in my nutrition textbook (Yes, they had a good discussion on various exercise modalities to improve body composition).  They basically suggest that although the EPOC is greater in higher intensity activities, overall caloric expenditure during the exercise itself seems to be of greater importance.
> 
> This is something the needs to be researched heavily in my opinion.  Really, what it comes down to is research methods.  There should not be such inconsistency in research results.  Empirically it would appear that EPOC is more significant than they suggest.  Also, there are studies like the one mentioned in the other e-mail you sent me regarding power athletes and steady state aerobic exercise, which suggest that high intensity interval training has a greater effect on body composition than aerobic exercise.
> 
> This is going to be a big one for a while.





What I found really interesting about the research review was that, while they did say that exercise intensity seemed to trigger the greatest EPOC and that energy expenditure during exercise was most important....none of the studies looked at EPOC during the rest interval!  How many calories are you burining between the interval/set??  What is O2 consuption like at this time?  It has been thought that there are two phases of O2 debt.  A slow phase, lasting 30min post exercise, and a fast phase, lasting immediatly following a set or interval.

That is one of the things that the research review was hinting at for further research being conducted.  What are the total calories burned added together with whatever you get post workout and whatever you get in between each set.


----------



## CowPimp (Jan 11, 2007)

P-funk said:


> What I found really interesting about the research review was that, while they did say that exercise intensity seemed to trigger the greatest EPOC and that energy expenditure during exercise was most important....none of the studies looked at EPOC during the rest interval!  How many calories are you burining between the interval/set??  What is O2 consuption like at this time?  It has been thought that there are two phases of O2 debt.  A slow phase, lasting 30min post exercise, and a fast phase, lasting immediatly following a set or interval.
> 
> That is one of the things that the research review was hinting at for further research being conducted.  What are the total calories burned added together with whatever you get post workout and whatever you get in between each set.



True that.  I would imagine that is pretty damned high.

Also, are they measuring increased oxygen consumption after the workout only?  Then that doesn't take into account the other necessary caloric increases for tissue recovery.


----------



## CowPimp (Jan 11, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> True that.  I would imagine that is pretty damned high.
> 
> Also, are they measuring increased oxygen consumption after the workout only?  Then that doesn't take into account the other necessary caloric increases for tissue recovery.



Scratch that.  The more I thought about it, the more I realized that oxygen consumption would increase for tissue needs as well.


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 12, 2007)

I'm not all that clued up on the details of EPOC, despite P-Funk's efforts to send me then research a lot of it was a bit over my head!!!!

Can u break it down in dumbass terms 4 me?!?!


----------



## CowPimp (Jan 12, 2007)

danchubbz said:


> I'm not all that clued up on the details of EPOC, despite P-Funk's efforts to send me then research a lot of it was a bit over my head!!!!
> 
> Can u break it down in dumbass terms 4 me?!?!



Your body uses oxygen to help it produce energy.  The term aerobic exercise refers to exercise which can be powered by the slower, but more effecient, energy system that utilizes oxygen to produce useable energy.  

EPOC stands for excess post-exercise oxygen consumption.  That is, the amount of oxygen beyond what your body would normally be intaking to sustain itself as a result of an exercise session.  So, depending on the intensity and volume of exercise, this EPOC can last anywhere from a few hours to a day.  This period of excess oxygen consumption may be even more according to some literature.  

That increased oxygen intake is associated with an increased energy expenditure.  This extra energy is needed for tissue repair and the restoration of a normal blood profile/overall homeostatic state with respect to certain hormones and chemicals such as lactic acid levels, glycogen stores, etc.


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 13, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> Your body uses oxygen to help it produce energy.  The term aerobic exercise refers to exercise which can be powered by the slower, but more effecient, energy system that utilizes oxygen to produce useable energy.
> 
> EPOC stands for excess post-exercise oxygen consumption.  That is, the amount of oxygen beyond what your body would normally be intaking to sustain itself as a result of an exercise session.  So, depending on the intensity and volume of exercise, this EPOC can last anywhere from a few hours to a day.  This period of excess oxygen consumption may be even more according to some literature.
> 
> That increased oxygen intake is associated with an increased energy expenditure.  This extra energy is needed for tissue repair and the restoration of a normal blood profile/overall homeostatic state with respect to certain hormones and chemicals such as lactic acid levels, glycogen stores, etc.



Thanks for that, really helped me out.

Quick question; I know it's gonna vary depending on the intensity of the workout and the condition on the person but in your opinion how long would EPOC last if a 27 yr. old male, 160lbs who did 25 mins of HIIT, also does EPOC last longer after HIIT or weight training (any type of weights routine that is), I'm assuming weight training but would like to confirm it.

Cheers.


----------



## P-funk (Jan 13, 2007)

danchubbz said:


> Thanks for that, really helped me out.
> 
> Quick question; I know it's gonna vary depending on the intensity of the workout and the condition on the person but in your opinion how long would EPOC last if a 27 yr. old male, 160lbs who did 25 mins of HIIT, also does EPOC last longer after HIIT or weight training (any type of weights routine that is), I'm assuming weight training but would like to confirm it.
> 
> Cheers.



a) impossible to predict.  Look at that research review!!  Nothing was definite!  

b) Don't worry about it.  The important thing to worry about is that you work as intensly as possible to burn as many calories as you can during the workout.

Lets say, for example, that you and I are going to work out for 30min each.  You do HIIT and I do steady state cardio.  Now, you work very intensly, and lets say, going by one of those studies in the research review, your EPOC only amounts to 30-40 extra calories post workout (not that significant).  But, during the intense intervals you were burning 15 cals per minute (15 x 30= 450 total cals).  During my steady state program, I was working at a pace that was burning 8cals per minute (30 x 8 = 240cals total).  The take home message is, regardless of EPOC, you have still output a greater amount of energy and at the end of the day, that is all that matters.  Now, from that research review (even though I said it is insignificant in this example), lets take your 40 extra calories post workout.  Lets say you did 2 interval sessions per week and lifted 3 times that week (also considered an 'interval' workout).  That is 5 sessions with an extra 40 calories (again, research is conflicting and it seems to be up in the air.  For all we know, it could be an extra 200calories), you would end the week with an extra deficit of 200 calories (3 x 40).

Basically, what I am saying is don't worry about all the eexercise physiology shit (unless you are interested), leave that up to the eggheads (like me), and just make sure that you work intensly in the gym.


----------



## danchubbz (Jan 13, 2007)

P-funk said:


> a) impossible to predict.  Look at that research review!!  Nothing was definite!
> 
> b) Don't worry about it.  The important thing to worry about is that you work as intensly as possible to burn as many calories as you can during the workout.
> 
> ...



Top advice mate, just finished a HIIT session on the rower followed by some boxing and my body is definately telling me I've had a good workout!!!!!!!


----------

