I was using the Martin Beckhan view which is around 8 hours period to eat. I think the period that most people eat is subjective. 10 hours is period is quite reasonable 8am-6pm and importantly adequate. What do you do in this period? Do you have one meal at the start and one at the end? Or is it reasonable to have three smaller meals?
Diet Food Programme
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
I was using the Martin Beckhan view which is around 8 hours period to eat. I think the period that most people eat is subjective. 10 hours is period is quite reasonable 8am-6pm and importantly adequate. What do you do in this period? Do you have one meal at the start and one at the end? Or is it reasonable to have three smaller meals?
Your journal was not a reference to a skipped meal, perhaps 6 skipped meals in a row. It is definitely not relevant to IF. I have already posted a few links earlier, the later are relevant.
In that journal it says:
"It has long been known that prolonged undernutrition
and fasting lead to a reduction in resting metabolic rate (RMR). This is due both to a
decrease in body mass and to a fall in the energy expenditure of the remaining body tissue."
"The SNS is activated following glucose ingestion
(Berne et al. 1989) and P-blockade reduces the increment in metabolic rate seen in this
situation (Astrup et al. 1989)"
Which is not that useful either for the periods used in that journal.
What is useful is it identifies this as a cause "gluconeogenesis" aka muscle breakdown to form energy which is why the metabolism raised. So the body is digesting itself for energy. There is also "ketosis" as you would expect.
Last edited:
Most people on an 8 hour window will fit two decent meals in, one at the start and one at the end.
I still don't agree that a 10 hour window for most working people eating a standard 3 meals is workable though. Take normal working hours of 9-5:30, average of say 45 travelling time at each end of the day. That's 10.5 hours out of the house, and you'd need to eat before you go in the morning. So you'd probably start eating at 7:45 at the latest, then cook and eat after you get home, that would take you to around 7:30 for a decent meal.
Is it ok to do three smaller ones in the same period? Does it make a difference?
I think that is why it is subjective with the hours as external factors influence it. Is IF done everyday?
Doing 3 smaller meals would be OK if that's how people wanted to do it, as long as you're not just trying to fit the same amount of food into the smaller window.
As we've been saying, there are various ways of doing IF, some people will do a 16/8, 18/6 or 20/4 pattern every day, some people will eat normally 6 days a week then have one day off, some people will alternate days etc... It's largely about finding something you're comfortable with and that works for you.
I see. Eating less for three meals would be just the same as a normal diet. The IF part comes in to make sure that you do this within that small window in a day? Do the external issues like work, commuting etc. make it hard to stick to IF? Or is it as easy as someone wanting to eat normally but having breakfast/eating mid morning at work?
If you're only looking at food intake, then yes, having 3 smaller meals spread out would give similar results. The difference is that for most people, it's much easier to skip a meal and then eat normally for the meals they do have than to eat less at each meal. If you're still eating carb heavy foods, IF will also keep you burning fat for a larger portion of the day, not so much of an issue if you're eating well in the first place.
IF shouldn't generally be hard to stick to, I know people who IF while doing normal office jobs and commuting. I work from home though so haven't actually tried it myself.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,442
Not to have a go at the OP here but why do people always insist on going on a diet instead of eating what they wish (in moderation) and exorcising?
Really does sound like a an easy way out without putting little to no effort in and then they usually blame it on the diet and go back to their ways.
Really does sound like a an easy way out without putting little to no effort in and then they usually blame it on the diet and go back to their ways.
Its an addiction. Generally you don't kick addictions by giving yourself a little bit. It's easier to cut out these foods and combine it with natural body mechanism which will repress hunger and ensure a balanced insulting blood level, that way you at least cut out the physical cravings.
However diets general don't work, it's a lifestyle change and needs to be maintained for life, although once you've lost weight, hopefully you've started to exercise and as you lose weight, you can do more and more exercise so you can eat a bit more.
So very much this.
I really dislike it when people form a baseless opinion and then set about defending it.
It's unfortunate that "baseless" covers pretty much every mainstream opinion when it comes to nutrition, but that's the way it is.
delta0, please refrain from giving people advice about nutrition, you know far less than you think you do. I haven't read all of your posts thoroughly, but I haven't seen anything that is actually correct.
I wonder what the world would be like if more people actually sought out evidence and derived logical conclusions before forming opinions. Being told you're wrong isn't offensive, it's interesting.
More or less yeah.Seriously!?
I wouldn't say that I've been doing strict IF for that long, although I am at the moment (kind of) because it fits my schedule. It also works with carb back loading quite well, which is something I'm playing with at the moment.
Oh noes, I forgot to check with my GP if smashing 400g of carbs IN THE EVENING would be bad for my health.
Goodnight sweet gains.
Ice, as I said the OP should see the GP, any other advice would be negligent as this is a forum and not a practise. I am not necessarily expressing my own opinion, others have expressed their view on fasting and even the medical community disagree with this method. Anyway Chris1712 did not identify in the journal that it caused muscle loss which is why the metabolism went up after a while. Basically the body digesting itself as I suspected. However it is a far cry from eating in an 8 hour window which is actually what was meant when talking about IF rather than all out fasting.
I'm lucky I gained a lot of nutrition and dietetics friends when I was at uni. First link they threw my way http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247839.php
I'm lucky I gained a lot of nutrition and dietetics friends when I was at uni. First link they threw my way http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247839.php
Last edited:
Yea he lost weight but was any of it fat?Starving yourself will make your body burn muscle.
I watched a programme in Korea where a number of guys try to lean out and build muscle (Qualifications of Men (in English)). One of them dieted too much (skipping meals) and lost a lot of muscle. The ones that ate well and worked out properly lost a lot of fat and gained a good amount of muscle.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 12,540
- Location
- London
I.F is only as effective as the macro intake when you're not fasting. Leangains can be adapted for cutting, body recomposition (me, checking in) or either a clean/dirty bulk (not that the latter is recommended), but to do any of those you have to have your diet down. If you're under-eating on both training and rest days then no **** you're going to lose muscle and strength - I.F or eating 6-8 times a day.
The whole joy of Leangains is the cycling of under/over-eating on workout/rest days, as well as carb backloading, and carb/fat cycling - it's why so many people get awesome results doing it, many people make gains even when cutting, and many can put on size without adding a lot of fat.
Also Martin's 16/8 window is a starting framework - it doesn't mean you have to eat right at the start of the window and again at the end - he basically chose 16/8 because after 16 hours fasted you're burning pretty much nothing but fat, and because it's flexible enough to allow social eating with friends/family, which unless you're a loner with no friends/family or completely unsociable is an important part of eating.
I have an 8 hour feeding window but often eat everything in a 6 hour period, sometimes even 4. Sometimes I train fasted, sometimes I don't. A few of the guys I know on IF just eat once a day, smashing in truly epic PWO meals, and modest to impress rest day meals depending on their goals. I eat twice a day, usually - it's nice to be successfully losing body fat whilst still being able to enjoy large meals and not drive everyone up the wall with my body recomp diet.
The whole joy of Leangains is the cycling of under/over-eating on workout/rest days, as well as carb backloading, and carb/fat cycling - it's why so many people get awesome results doing it, many people make gains even when cutting, and many can put on size without adding a lot of fat.
Also Martin's 16/8 window is a starting framework - it doesn't mean you have to eat right at the start of the window and again at the end - he basically chose 16/8 because after 16 hours fasted you're burning pretty much nothing but fat, and because it's flexible enough to allow social eating with friends/family, which unless you're a loner with no friends/family or completely unsociable is an important part of eating.
I have an 8 hour feeding window but often eat everything in a 6 hour period, sometimes even 4. Sometimes I train fasted, sometimes I don't. A few of the guys I know on IF just eat once a day, smashing in truly epic PWO meals, and modest to impress rest day meals depending on their goals. I eat twice a day, usually - it's nice to be successfully losing body fat whilst still being able to enjoy large meals and not drive everyone up the wall with my body recomp diet.
It's not even that you're wrong about fasting.
I've also seen you mention (paraphrased where memory fails):
- Low fat consumption being good.
This is completely false, there are no benefits to "low fat" what-so-ever.
- Going to see your GP for nutritional advice.
This is as bad as going to your GP for sports injuries; it's a complete waste of time. GPs know next to nothing about nutrition, and that's if you're lucky. I'm fairly sure the NHS still advises low fat diets and avoiding cholesterol.
I know a girl who did some kind of dietician/nutrition course at "university" and has set up a "healthy eating" business. It's terrible.
While not offensively bad, the link you posted provides no actual evidence supporting the claim that skipping meals has a negative effect on weight loss.
"Women who skipped meals also lost less weight, therefore skipping meals is bad hurrrr durrrr" is not science. Correlation does not equal causation. They even speculate about the clustering of other behaviours potentially being a factor, but they still seem fairly certain that the "common knowledge" hypothesis is correct facepalm.jpg
So compare two groups, one on a diet, one eating 'normally' and see what happens? I'm shocked by the findings!
Try putting another group of a high fat, low carb diet and see what happens. This is the group which usually have more weight loss, better health markers and find it easier to stick to the diet.
Did you actually read it? As that's what they did... And it wasn't just two groups but several some trials spanning 5-7 years of data and over 70k people.
Last edited: