*** The 2013 Gym Rats Thread ***
- Thread starter Morba
- Start date
Are you kidding?
No days do I eat 1400 kcals. I eat around 2200 on my normal eating days, and 600 on fasting days.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18433816&highlight=fasting&page=1 for the previous discussion here.
http://liftstuff.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/a-comparison-of-intermittent-fasting.html for an analysis of the 3 main protocols.
I'm a bit shocked at this response!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
It's just another calorie control method - it's no more special than a good balanced diet. However, it's all about whether it fits in your lifestyle or not. For me eating 3-4 meals a day suits my lifestyle. To others, intermittent fasting does... others who need to control their performance, carb cycle does etc... it's just whether it suits your needs or not. There's nothing special about it.
Nothing wrong with IF, but 600cals every other day isn't good. Goodbye sweet gains, hello muscle loss. Goodnight recovery.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
I didn't say there was anything wrong - I just said it's another way of calorie control, lifestyle matching.
I think if done properly ADF can be good, but it really does depend on how you get your body using what as sources of energy. You cannot guarantee catabolism won't occur. I think the "science" is about the fact that our ancestors used to survive for days without eating then gorge themselves is where it's basing itself on.
personally none of these protocols suit me.
I think if done properly ADF can be good, but it really does depend on how you get your body using what as sources of energy. You cannot guarantee catabolism won't occur. I think the "science" is about the fact that our ancestors used to survive for days without eating then gorge themselves is where it's basing itself on.
personally none of these protocols suit me.
Luckily we live better than our ancestors (well some of us).
Are you kidding?
No days do I eat 1400 kcals. I eat around 2200 on my normal eating days, and 600 on fasting days.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18433816&highlight=fasting&page=1 for the previous discussion here.
http://liftstuff.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/a-comparison-of-intermittent-fasting.html for an analysis of the 3 main protocols.
I'm a bit shocked at this response!
Bro, do you even maths?
2800kcals over 2 days = 1400 per day. Unless you're cutting hard for some reason or are a teeny tiny manlet then that's too low IMO.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-9-98.pdf
Not sure if serious.
In b4 'not peer reviewed':
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Varady+KA[au]&dispmax=50
Are you kidding?
No days do I eat 1400 kcals. I eat around 2200 on my normal eating days, and 600 on fasting days.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18433816&highlight=fasting&page=1 for the previous discussion here.
http://liftstuff.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/a-comparison-of-intermittent-fasting.html for an analysis of the 3 main protocols.
I'm a bit shocked at this response!
The reason paleo, IF, etc. diets have come to some sort of prominence recently is because they take the body back - in evolutionary terms - to a deit that 'suits' it. Some physiologies have not evolved to deal with refined carbohydrates, others somewhat more complex carbohydrates. These are relatively modern inventions which we haven't 'evolved' to deal with.
Practically , IF could be more in line with how we evolved to eat as a species: not necessarily every day. So yes, hormones may be kept in better alignment, as will metabolic processes and whatnot. This will reduce certain risk factors in the individual, too.
However.
The variance in risk factors is - practically - tiny. Reduction in cancer risk, for example, is always one that's touted, but always expressed as a percentage reduction. Do you know how many factors influence cancer risk? Quite a few. So yes - cutting one down decreases it overall, but to what practical benefit?
Yes, a lot of people report feeling much more energetic when on given diets and I'm sure that's true. However, it's not a function of the specific diet, but more due to the fact taht they are not eating rubbish.
Yes, IF has its place for those who appreciate the way it works. I - personally - could not think of anything worse, which is why I have a balanced (but excessive) diet, instead. So, much like most other sensible diets, certain people will evangelise and pimp it as THE WAY IT'S MEANT TO BE DONE or whatever. But practically? It's just calorie control and sensible diet. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Practically , IF could be more in line with how we evolved to eat as a species: not necessarily every day. So yes, hormones may be kept in better alignment, as will metabolic processes and whatnot. This will reduce certain risk factors in the individual, too.
However.
The variance in risk factors is - practically - tiny. Reduction in cancer risk, for example, is always one that's touted, but always expressed as a percentage reduction. Do you know how many factors influence cancer risk? Quite a few. So yes - cutting one down decreases it overall, but to what practical benefit?
Yes, a lot of people report feeling much more energetic when on given diets and I'm sure that's true. However, it's not a function of the specific diet, but more due to the fact taht they are not eating rubbish.
Yes, IF has its place for those who appreciate the way it works. I - personally - could not think of anything worse, which is why I have a balanced (but excessive) diet, instead. So, much like most other sensible diets, certain people will evangelise and pimp it as THE WAY IT'S MEANT TO BE DONE or whatever. But practically? It's just calorie control and sensible diet. Nothing more. Nothing less.
TL;DR
The work on various forms of intermittent fasting is mixed (from a scientific evidence perspective) in terms of specific results. However, as FreeFaller points out, it is just another means of calorie control.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
Indeed.
I think the dangers of ADF is the gorging that's likely to occur on the "normal" food days.
Also, whilst ADF will work for weight loss, it's a daft way of doing it as you're lowering your calorie intake by 75-80% every other day. It's better aimed at morbidly obese people.
It works out like this for 2,500 cals a day:
Over a 2 week period your calorie intake is: 21,875
So average calorie intake per week is: 10,937.5
Which makes your average daily intake about: 1562.5
So if you're eating 2,500 cals a day and you wanted to lose weight bearing in mind it takes 3,500 calories to lose 1lb. Drop to 2,200 a day.
That means that in less than 2 weeks you will lose 1lb - just by dropping your calories by 300 a day.
On 2,500 calories a day:
2 week: 35,000
1 week: 17,500
On 2,200 a day:
2 week: 30,800
1 week: 15,400
So already by just dropping 300 cals a day, over a week you're at a 2,100 calorie deficit, 0.6lbs or 1.32Kg. Whilst still holding onto more muscle mass too undoubtedly.
This also doesn't take into account activity.
Personally I prefer, and what is generally accepted as better, is slowly tapering down your daily calories for an overall calorie deficit over a period of time. Makes your body less likely to hold onto fat.
It's also easier to drop 300 cals per day, than just eating 25% of your normal calories on "fasting" days.
Last edited:
*Sigh*
Do you even science (can't believe I used this phrase)?
Most of those studies are on the benefits of such calorie restrictions on OBESE people. In an extreme situation, extreme results will be reported. Why? Because the differentials will be more obvious and give those scientists more funding, get their names in papers, etc.
Summary of those papers? Obese people on controlled diets lost weight and coronary heart disease risk factors reduced.
Big. *******. Surprise.
*Sigh*
Do you even science (can't believe I used this phrase)?
Most of those studies are on the benefits of such calorie restrictions on OBESE people. In an extreme situation, extreme results will be reported. Why? Because the differentials will be more obvious and give those scientists more funding, get their names in papers, etc.
Summary of those papers? Obese people on controlled diets lost weight and coronary heart disease risk factors reduced.
Big. *******. Surprise.
I'm not sure where the disagreement is here?! I agree with you that it's just a diet. I know this.
What I'm arguing is that the diet is somehow 'a bad idea unless you're 12 years old' or a 'tiny manlet' - if the other proposed benefits occur then so be it - I'm not doing it for that reason.
What have I started? P.s. saying 'do you even science'...really?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
As I said in my post, that seems better suited for people who are morbidly overweight. Not following a healthy lifestyle.