My part of the argument was about the fasted-run myth, it seemed to me that entropy didn't buy that it is a myth so i came back to illustrate and bump your argument.
Edit: I am not saying fasted cardio is worse, I am saying it is the same. Fasted run will still have the results you wanted because you burned the kcals and that's all to it.
But also, indeed I thought that running (or doing anything besides resting and eating ) totaly depleted is bad. Isn't it? I had something like this in mind:
The wikipedia entry is a bit speculative. That said "hitting the wall" and training will fasted are very very different things. "Hitting the wall" occurs between mile 15 and mile 20 of the marathon... It's pretty interesting actually from a physiological standpoint, the marathon is the physical analogy of the 400m sprint. The 60m, 100m, 200m, and even 300m are primarily anaerobic events for top athletes and are run at roughly similar speeds (subtracting the start) by top athletes, but the 400m is where the anaerobic system simply gives way and the significant aerobicS component makes speeds much much slower even for the best athletes. That's the best times for the 100,200,300, and 400m are (9.x,19.x,30.x, 43.x) at 400 the average speed drops massively. Similarly the 5k, 10k, and even half marathon are all aerobic glycolytic runs and it isn't till the marathon distance that the body simply runs out and has to rely primarily on fatty acid oxidation (or digestion while training in some athletes) and times get a lot worse again....
For example take Zersenay Tadese the great distance runner. His hundred meter split over his PR in the 10k, 15k, 20k and half marathon is: 16.44, 16.63, 16.61, 16.60 (yes his 20k and half (~21.1k) are actually faster pace then his 10k). BUT his best ever 100m pace over his marathon is 18.6 seconds. Hitting the wall makes a big difference! If you take this long enough to ultra marathons you actually have races (over 100 miles) where women consistently beat men. At this point fatty acid oxidation is a primary fuel source and women are capable of storing more fat (and still being in shape of course!) than men.
So.... The point of that long winded discussion is.... Yes hitting the wall is terrible for performance (it's one reason I think people should not follow lyle mcdonalds advice when it comes to low-carb dieting... I actually like his recommendations for re-comping when it comes to average joes, but his contention that endurance athletes while ketogenic or fat-adapted is just wrong ->he has backed off recently and says it "may" work which is better I guess...). But as bad as hitting the wall is for performance it's probably not long term unhealthy and is actually pretty good for fat loss. That doesn't really matter because as non endurance athletes none of us are going to hit the wall with the type of depleted training I am suggesting!
If you get depleted and go run a bunch of 200's you will NOT hit the wall. Despite being depleted your body will still fill the muscle with ATP, this metabolism is just going to shift to fat metabolism (and amino acids depending on your leanness and your last intake of protein). So you run a 200m, you recover and regenerate by burning fat, and you run another one. No wall hitting here. Even if you run farther or jog or walk you will not hit the wall as long as you work at a pace that is low enough intensity that your fatty acid oxidation can keep up. Hitting the wall is only a concern if you are doing constant work at an elevated heart rate at an intensity which is too great for your fat metabolism. For example running 15 miles at a 16.5 sec 100m pace.... You keep doing that and when glycogen runs out you don't have any system capable of supplying you with energy, you can go into fermentation (lactic acid) without realizing it for a bit but then you are DONE. That's why you slow down a couple seconds per hundred and you are fine. So bottom line... do fasted intervals or low intensity distance work while fasted at your hearts content!
But doesn't it make more sense to burn specifically more fat as fuel during a fasted state? Since you're out of glycogen, then fat should be the "only" source of fuel in that situation.
Again... Yes of course. But, the goal is not to do as many workouts that burn fat as possible. The goal is to burn fat over the long term. Fasted cardio and refeeding will burn more fat during the bout of training and less fat for the rest of the day.... Eating before training will burn less fat during training but more fat later. Over a period of weeks it will even out. That's the reason it does not matter. As I described above it is worse as far as performance. I do favor it for both you and entropy though.... not because it burns more fat but because I simply think it's easier to follow.
In my experience this protocol is easy for an athlete who wants to cut. End Sunday with a high protein meal. Start Monday with some caffeine and intense training and continue to fast the whole day. Begin Tuesday with some lower intensity training while still fasting (this training is fun because you may actually have your bw lighter and jump higher) and then allow yourself to eat again Tuesday afternoon or evening. You may find that you are able to be satisfied eating a moderate amount until Wednesday. That's the benefit. It's an easier to follow protocol (for some athletes). Better because it's easier to follow, not because it burns more fat!
