Intermittent Fasting

Scythe said:
I know the difference but what do people get by on a daily basis to lower their carb intake, what do they eat?
Click to expand...

On rest days you have a higher protein intake to offset the reduction in carbs (meat is quite saitating as is), although using myself as an example, although my rest day limit for carbs is 50g, this doesn't include green veg (e.g. brocolli, spinach, cabbage etc as well as cucumber, peppers etc) which aren't included in my macro-counting and are hard to over-eat on unless you're deliberately trying.

It depends on what your goals are though. For someone cutting the carb intake on a rest day is going to be quite low (i.e. me = 50g on a rest day, 265g on a training day), for someone on a slow bulk their carb intake will be much higher.

Mostly for rest days it's meat/fish/quark + green veg/salad, quark, peanut butter, oily dressings, olive oil, fruit and some weeks I'll sneak in something naughty like the hot chocolate souflee thing I had the other week which was about 40g fat (my allowance on rest days is 55g although 5g of that comes from MP Omega 3 liquid) and 40g carbs (allowance 50g) which meant I had no fruit that day - but one cheeky day like that in the grand scheme of things doesn't hurt - I mostly just have two bits of fruit (roughly 25g each) or one bit of fruit and leave the other 25g to play with (e.g. non-green veg like carrots, breadcrumbs on meat, that kind of thing). To keep my diet varied I tend to have solid sources that make up most of my macros and leave some spare for odds and sods to mix it up a bit.
 
Last edited:
Chris1712 said:
...



That's how it SHOULD be done IMO. But people will often interpret it as any easy/strict way to drop X amount of calories without thinking about it. If you did a full day fast and ate as normal other days you just effectively cut say 300-500kcals a day from your daily diet.
Click to expand...

That is basically the point of it though. If you cut a whole day you'd reduce your calorie intake by about 2000. You cant eat 4000 the next day.
 
Doing the 8 hour window for me has improved my weight loss (So far) - but early days yet to make any real judgements.

The biggest benefit I've found from the 16 hour fast is how much more alert I feel during work, no longer do I get the 10AM downer I used to get & struggle to stay awake.

Perhaps some people are more sensitive to insulin spikes, I'll have to do more reading on the matter.

I do eat pretty much the same as before (calorie wise), just condensed - the only difference being more protein & a bit less carbs.
 
It's been pretty much the same for me. The other nice thing is usually I only have to deal with making food once (dinner + lunch for the next day) and sitting down to eat it twice, which creates some extra free time in the day and means I don't have to rush eating either - it's nice to methodically plow through a massive plate of meat!
 
Since the bbc programme aired I decided to do the fast-5 diet, more for the supposed health benefits than losing weight, as I already eat well and exercise daily.

My eating window has been from about 1.30pm till 6.30pm, shifted around by an hour or so if I happened to eat a bit later.

I've been strict, I have eaten 2 normal portioned meals in my window, so really I am eating slightly less calories as I used to have a small bowl of muesli in the morning which I now don't have. No snacks, only black coffee or water outside my window.

Now I'm not really overweight (~14% bodyfat), still I've lost nothing in that time, not even a pound. I also read of some new studies this week that cast doubt on the heath benefits of restricted calorie diets...Probably give it another week or so but think I'm going to bin it off tbh.
 
16/8 hour split. So far down by 2kg in 3 days LOL.

My life style has been far from perfect but my meals are always healthy. I am doing a charity bike ride tomorrow which is 60 miles so it is going out the window tomorrow.
 
Fasting.

So I watched the BBC Horizon documentary Eat, Fast and Live Longer and am quite intrigued by the idea. I'm guessing that there must be a few of you that have seen it - it's on the 'Tube if you haven't. In fairness, the first 20 or so minutes are fluff.

Normally I'm not taken in by nonsense diet claims and having lived exclusively with women for the last five years, I've seen my fair share of weird diets in the flesh! But Alternate Day Fasting seems to have some merit; don't fast for so long that the temptation to gorge is too much to resist, whilst at the same time causing a significant reduction in calorific intake.

Has anybody tried this? I'm quite eager to give it a go as my hunger pangs tend not to set in until lunch time anyway. It seems like an easy avenue to try to lose a few pounds (I think I'm about 13st at present) without having to significantly change my diet, which isn't unhealthy anyway.

The thing that bugs me is that I work a fairly typical office job, usually out in the field one day a week. Every time I have lunch at my desk I can't help but feel guilty about eating whilst having exerted no more energy than it takes to go to the sandwich shop around the corner - which makes me feel like the fasting route might be a little bit more bearable.

So, any thoughts? Experiences?
 
For the living longer part, I believe there's no direct human evidence and is all extrapolated from some animal research (mainly mice, one species lived longer and other species of mice didn't live longer) which can not relied upon for humans and where a lot of crazy food ideas have lead from, like cholesterol.

As said in the other thread if you find it easy it's a usefull tool to help calorie intake.
 
Last edited:
Huge amount of stuff on the net about fasting/intermittent fasting.

Martin Berkhan was the first to really push the concept (and gain popularity) with his leangains protocol but there's tons of alternatives if you just do a google search.

Thing is, loads of people do it without even thinking about it (skipping breakfast.) I've tried it purposefully before and found it was helpful for losing weight (but the same thermogenic rules apply as ever, calories in, calories out.)

I also find it very easy to simply drink black coffee all day at work and then have good large dinner when I'm home. Suits me, doesn't suit other people. It's a real individual thing.

One thing I would say is, if you're counting calories/macros, it's pretty easy when you're only eating two meals instead of 4-8 meals.

As far as the benefits of fasting? I think most people who have done serious research on it would suggest that any positives are not that significant (growth hormone increase etc.)

Best advice anyone could say is to simply try it for a week and see how you go with it.
 
I'm sorta doing it right now. Only eating between 8am - 4pm. Rest of the time just water or maybe the odd bit of fruit if I get too hungry. Can't say I'm feeling any better for it or would keep it up in the long run. But apparently it's good for weight loss and I'm battling the last irritating 2kgs to hit my target weight.
 
Must have taken them years of dilligent research and advanced scientific testing/analysis to be able to conclude that if we don't eat we lose weight!:p

Sounds pretty absurd to me to deliberately deprive your body of any nutrients and live in a half starved state just to drop a few pounds, these fad diets get dumber by the day.

Whatever happened to eating sensibly and getting some exercise? or isn't that scientifically faddish enough?
 
It isn't a 'diet'. It's merely a more unorthodox way of structuring your daily meals.

The only people who make it a fad are the nutcases who think calories in/out aren't 100% responsible for any changes you will see.
 
smit101 said:
Whatever happened to eating sensibly and getting some exercise? or isn't that scientifically faddish enough?
Click to expand...

what's eating sensibly?
Lots of reserch suggests that the carb rich, veg oil diet we have these days is not healthy.

A lot of these new "diets" ways of living are based partly on pre farming lifestyles and foods.
 
smit101 said:
Whatever happened to eating sensibly and getting some exercise? or isn't that scientifically faddish enough?
Click to expand...

Well, people don't, that's why 6/10 people are overweight. Or whatever the latest statistics are. Since they're not going to go to the gym or pretty much move from the sofa, perhaps fasting could be a less painless way losing weight.

DISCLAIMER.

I'm not saying fasting IS a way to lose weight, but going without food 16-20 hours a day depending on how you structure it should induce some weight loss. In theory at least.

Though, I'm doing it your sensible way and exercise myself into the ground and eat sensibly. It works wonderfully up to a point. Now I'm trying this.
 
regulus said:
Well, people don't, that's why 6/10 people are overweight. Or whatever the latest statistics are. Since they're not going to go to the gym or pretty much move from the sofa, perhaps fasting could be a less painless way losing weight.

DISCLAIMER.

I'm not saying fasting IS a way to lose weight, but going without food 16-20 hours a day depending on how you structure it should induce some weight loss. In theory at least.

Though, I'm doing it your sensible way and exercise myself into the ground and eat sensibly. It works wonderfully up to a point. Now I'm trying this.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

I'd wager plenty of the people trying it in this thread are doing the lean-gains style one - that means calorie restriction along with 3 times a week exercise (stronglifts myself).

I don't think anybody here is pretending that a fastest period without exercise/eating sensibly will cause significant weight loss (or any) - just that IF along with exercise & calorie restriction might accelerate weight loss (which it seems to have so far with me & a few others).
 
^^^ That's what I'm doing too. I think people are getting too hung up on the 'Fasting' part, it's not actually going without food for a huge length of time if you do something lik 16/8 but by reducing my eating hours it has given me three key benefits:

1) Made me eat better since I know I have to get fruit/veg in when I can and I am more aware of what I am eating.
2) Stops me grazing all day on 100-200 calorie snacks of varying quality which means better food overall and fewer junk calories.
3) I eat based on how hungry I am, if I've done a big run and my appetite is up then I will eat more but equally I don't just serve up the same portion size each day when I don't always need it.

I have certainly lost weight but I'm also running 35-40km per week and doing other exercise so I'm not relying on IF to 'fix me' but so far I've had no ill effects and feel I am eating better as a result of doing it.
 
Don't forget that an important component of LG I.F is the macronutrient cycling of carbs and fats on w/o and rest days, as well as some consideration taken to meal timing particularly on training days (biggest meal PWO w/a higher % of your carbs in) and the -/+ thing whereby you generally under eat on rest days (low carb, higher fat) and overeat on training days (higher carb, low fat).

One of the reasons many people like the LG approach, that I've seen, is that it enables them to maintain low bodyfat levels whilst not being on a cut in the way most people would approach it, bulk with minimal fat retention (albeit slowly), and not have to approach bulking or cutting as long-term cycle (i.e. a eating at a noticeable deficit every day in order to lose cut, or overeating every day to bulk). With the link I posted further up, the person in question had achieved great results doing the 5-6 meals, 5-6 times a week in the gym thing, but got the same results on LG/IF doing x3 workouts a week w/2-3 meals a day - a lot less time investment, enabling him to have more of a life outside the gym.

It also forces a little variation in your diet as meals on rest/WO days have to be different given the difference in fat/carb targets.
 
Last edited:
regulus said:
Well, people don't, that's why 6/10 people are overweight. Or whatever the latest statistics are. Since they're not going to go to the gym or pretty much move from the sofa, perhaps fasting could be a less painless way losing weight.

DISCLAIMER.

I'm not saying fasting IS a way to lose weight, but going without food 16-20 hours a day depending on how you structure it should induce some weight loss. In theory at least.

Though, I'm doing it your sensible way and exercise myself into the ground and eat sensibly. It works wonderfully up to a point. Now I'm trying this.
Click to expand...

I agree - however can't disagree with smit's comments. The problem is people eat too much processed and refined foods. Especially mass produced bread and low quality carbs. They **** up your insulin / satiety levels more than anything.

It does work because a lot of people would struggle to over eat in a small time window (so in effect it does generally reduce the calorie intake).

The GH / IGF-1 argument is weak, and actually one can stimulate more GH and IGF-1 from a good structured diet (with minimal poor quality foods), hard gym work (lifting heavy to really stimulate that hormonal release), and decent sleep.

I will say though that IF is a good way to get started to learn about nutrition and how your body responds to foods, and to try and get your insulin sensitivity back in check. I can also see why it's a good/manageable lifestyle for some people. I just cannot stand (and I don't mean you :) - I just enjoyed your post hence why I'm quoting you) the evangelistic "this is the best thing ever" posts - when it's not the be all and end all.

If it really was the "ultimate" - all rugby players/athletes, bodybuilders, strength athletes and so on would be doing it. The fact is if you want to be big and strong, you've got to eat! If you want to be lean and strong, you've got to eat. It's just how much and what you eat that's more important than when really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom