Training on an Empty Stomach

Great article Jason. I have been following the Leangains method for about 10 weeks now and have been very impressed with the results, with regard to adding strength and losing fat. One of the unintended consequences of this is that I am always doing my morning cardio in a fasted state (I run some days but have also been doing a lot of stair climbing (real stairs – not a machine) to try and simulate running vert). Now, if I run after my last meal the night before, then I am really in a fasted state and feel the “wall” earlier on, much as you describe in the article – however you gain that by a longer fasting period.

It sucked bad early on and I nearly abounded Leangains but things have gotten better. I am losing fat, gaining strength, and pushing the wall further out. I also think that running through the discomfort has certainly helped me build some mental fortitude (that is totally different topic and one that I have been thinking a lot about).
 
I think its probably worth pointing out that the 'training' you should be doing in the fasted state is of the Aerobic variety. It doesnt seem to make a lot of sense to fast before an interval session or a tempo run, in fact instead of boosting the training effect, it may actually decrease it as your unable to maintain a high effort effort level throughout that session.

Fasting prior and during exercise just helps you get to that glycogen depleted state faster so that you can either get the majority of the same benifit as a longer run in a shorter time, or spend more time running depleted for the metabolic benifits that it brings. It is hard when you first start, and I'd advise against just switching cold turkey from training with gels etc instead slowly ween yourself off. First cut fueling during runs then stretch the time between the last meal and your run.

Training fasted has worked for me. So much so that when i do take gels i feel supercharged.
 
I think its probably worth pointing out that the 'training' you should be doing in the fasted state is of the Aerobic variety. It doesnt seem to make a lot of sense to fast before an interval session or a tempo run, in fact instead of boosting the training effect, it may actually decrease it as your unable to maintain a high effort effort level throughout that session.

Training fasted has worked for me. So much so that when i do take gels i feel supercharged.

Ah, but this is the key to my frequent "experimentation" rants. There's no conclusive evidence doing anaerobic work in a fasted state is bad. In fact, it very well could be beneficial. As far an a sustained effort, look at what the elite ultrarunners do. They run for hours upon hours in the anaerobic zone with little caloric intake.

We shouldn't rule out any idea without first doing some self-experimentation. that includes ideas that seem to be counter-intuitive, go against popular training methods, or defy conventional logic.
 
... As far an a sustained effort, look at what the elite ultrarunners do. They run for hours upon hours in the anaerobic zone with little caloric intake...

Jason I cannot help but wonder if your definition of anaerobic zone is somehow different to mine. When i refer to Anaerobic exercise im typically refering to exercise performed above the Lactate Threshold or when the production of lactate outstrips your bodys ability to metabolise it. At this performance level a signifficant proportion of the energy requirements are being meet by anaerobic glycolysis, hence the accumulation of lactate, some proportion of energy needs will still be meet by Aerobic glycolysis, while energy supplied from fat oxidation is likely to be minimal. The body can only maintain performance at that level as long as the lactate concentration doesnt get to high. Even if you reduce performance to LT or even just under it the body can only maintain that performance level while it has glycogen available .... those glycogen stores as we know are limited. Once fully depleted your only source of energy is fat oxidation.

I think you would agree that runners that are able to maintain a certain pace for many hours without significant calorie consumption cannot be relying only on glycogen, They are getting a significant portion of their energy requirements from fat oxidation, with some from Aerobic glycolysis, while energy supplied from Anaerobic glycolysis would be minimal. An body supplying its energy requirments so must be well under the lactate threshold, and thus it is Aerobic

So i would contend that these elite athlete's rather than running in their Anaerobic zone must be running in ther Aerobic zone. The fact that they are able to maintain such astonishing performance levels whilst consuming relativly small amounts of calories indicates that they have a highly trainined fat oxidation cycle, that it is able to supply a significant portion of their enery needs at that pace....

How they got it there is the interesting part, and where i think the concept of 'training while fasted' so that your forced to run in a glycogen depleted state comes in. It forces your body to adapt to running using Fat Oxidation as the primary energy source, and hence encourages the creation of more mitochodria where that fat oxidation takes place, Increasing your capacity to supply energy via fat oxidation. Fat oxidation however does require more oxygen than Aerobic Glycolysis for the same amount of usable energy, So even though the body may be supplying the majority of the energy requirements through Fat oxidation it will still be breathing hard in order to get as much oxygen as possible in.

Running over trails, uneven terain, hills, or reacting to race tactics just complicates the whole thing further as the body is likely to shift slightly back and foward along the scale. with some sections really being anaerobic whilst others may be slow enough to be almost exclusivly fat oxidation.

But in your Blog post your talk about running Fasted as an alternative to running with a Low HR. From what i gather both approaches are intending to target the same matabolic improvement. From my perspective, when running fasted i know with absolute certainty that i will running a good portion of my run almost exclusively using fat oxidation. Whereas running with low HR but with significant glycogen stores the body still has that glycogen there available, and so there may well not be the same training presure to optimise fat oxidation. Also once glycogen depleted i can push the pace as hard as i like and still know that im running on fat oxidation.... The big downside to training fasted is that its uncomfortable.... but even there i see advantages, i helps with mental preparation.... but that discomfort is probably why its not so appealing. I personally think training fasted is superior to standard low HR programs.

Id still contend that training low for speed work is counter productive, if your wanting to train the lactate shuffle or your ability to continue to perform with high lactate levels you need to produce lactate, which requires glycogen, If your doing sprints to improve form then feeling fatigued may not allow you to run them to maximum effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joohneschuh
I'm using the popular MAF definition; Aerobic = primarily glycogen-fueled, anaerobic = primarily fat-fueled. Based on my definition, the elites would be moving into the anaerobic zone if they're relying on fat oxidation. I agree- they're going too fast and long to rely on glycogen stores. They have really well developed fat metabolism mechanisms. If you've ever watched the leaders in a hundo, it's clear by their effort they're anaerobic.

My point about experimentation- doing any training solely based on the available science is limited because the science, by definition, will always be incomplete. Since all theories must be falsifiable, they could be wrong. In regards to metabolic processes in particular, we don't know everything there is to know. Here's a simple example-

Some people train using Crossfit Endurance, which consists entirely of anaerobic training. Others train using Maff's methods, which is entirely aerobic (assuming they're in the earlier stages). Both groups produce successful ultrarunners. How do we determine which method is better? We can't rely on science, because there's research that supports both. We have to rely on self-experimentation.

Everything we know about metabolic processes, regardless of the apparent certainty and consensus among researchers, could be wrong. There could be another as-of-yet-undiscovered variable that controls everything and we just don't have the tools to measure it.

Hell, even the cornerstone of training for runners, VO2 max, is being called into question. We could have spent decades designing training programs around an invalid measurement. Using science to design training plans should be secondary to self-experimentation.
 
jason, i think you mixed up your fuels for zones. aerobic = fat burning, anaerobic = glycogen burning.

i've been running for years and lifting weights before i eat breakfast. never crashed and have good gains. mind you i don't run ultras or intervals. i just run and am now doing maf training.
 
jason, i think you mixed up your fuels for zones. aerobic = fat burning, anaerobic = glycogen burning.

i've been running for years and lifting weights before i eat breakfast. never crashed and have good gains. mind you i don't run ultras or intervals. i just run and am now doing maf training.

Indeed, my bad. I blame my kids... they distracted me. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickW
Indeed, my bad. I blame my kids... they distracted me. ;)
Seems the wisest choice, I blame mine as well for as much as i can get away with...

The Aerobic vs Anaerobic is confusing... especially since Aerobic can be broken down further into two modes, Aerobic but primarily Glycogen fueled and Aerobic but primarily Fat fueled.

Incedentally i agree wholheartedly about the experimentation thing, There are too many variables in the real world, that you can simply apply the results of one experiment performed under a controlled set of conditions blindly to each and every real world situation.

The way i approached selecting how i train is to look at what has worked for others, identify which of those i actually enjoy doing, then see if they bring the results i hope for. Now perhapes i could be doing something differently and it would yield better results, but if i dont enjoy it im not really sure how long id keep it up. Besides im happy with the results i have been getting so far, and im under no illusions that i have the natural talent to perform at the same level as the elites, regardless of what sort of training i put in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brahmwindeler
Phil Maffetone pretty strongly discourages ppl from running on empty like this. I went looking at his website for a specific reference, but couldn't find any, but I did bump into this article which seemed serendipitous:

http://philmaffetone.com/aerobic.cfm

The guy is a prolific writer, and a good source of no-nonesense info. People think he's just the dude who says "run slow", but that's not him at all. He's an Ironman coach, fer cripe's sake. Writes for Lava magazine:

http://lavamagazine.com

Anyway - I also "run on empty", used to do it much more often (it's not so uncommon here in Gemany, and if you want a cool word for it, try this: "Nuechternlaufen") and am certain that it does help in dealing with lulls in energy when they occur, but I'm not convinced about the "aerobic" training effect ie the balance of slow vs fast twitch muscle fibers, etc. I think the benefits might be more psychological than physiological.
 
i did my longest "run" to date on saturday. 15 miles with no water and no breakfast. i stopped alot to make sure my dog drank water. thank god for trails. i wound up walking over the last two miles back to keep under my maf pace. i felt great afterwards and finally peed after 3 hours.
 
My long runs are also done on very little, usually a banana and a glass of water or coffee. I always feel better on these runs than I do when I run in the evening after dinner.
 
You are all smoking crack. I eat a small amount of food before I start and eat a small handful of pumpkin seeds a couple times throughout my run and I drink about 16 oz of water along the way - at 5-7 miles. I eat before I feel any emptiness, and this allows my to keep my energy up the whole time. I've tried not eating and drinking and it makes me lethargic.
 
There have been a few times where I started a run on a full stomach, and ended it with an empty stomach. Not my finest days...
 
Did a nice 100 minutes a little while ago, I had had some leftover Chinese for breakfast but my stomach was pretty much empty when I headed out the door. I'm not in the best shape right now, so at around 70 minutes or so, I felt the energy crash - and it made me happy :D Lasted about five minutes and then I could feel the reserve batteries kicking in. I was extra aware of the sensations because of this thread ... funny how these things carry over into the everday.
 

Support Your Club

Forum statistics

Threads
19,150
Messages
183,608
Members
8,696
Latest member
Barefoot RPS

Latest posts