*** The 2013 Gym Rats Thread ***

Skeptic said:
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? :p
Click to expand...


My point was that just because it's in a journal doesn't make it... anything. ;)

There is nothing WRONG with IF or whatever protocol you want to adopt. A lot of people here will be against it because:

a) As diets go, it's genuinely hard work;
b) It's pretty antisocial on your fasting days;
c) They don't want to imagine not eating for a day (I'm with them on this);
d) All of the above are compromises too many when more or less the same results can be had with a sensible and balanced diet.

So a sensible and balanced diet normally works out as the winner for most people.
 
The fact you don't seem to be grasping is that if this is combined with any sort of exercise, especially weight lifting, you're not going to improve. You're not fueling yourself with enough energy to recover and become stronger. On your 600cal days, you're going to be so catabolic, anything you do will be wasting muscle.
 
My gym performance increases the more I eat - but as does my waistline - so it's a balance between the 2. It depends which is more important to you.
 
Zefan said:
But guys, he posted links and a gif so he must be right.
Click to expand...

What's your problem? I posted links to counter your claim of bro-science, that's all. It's not a question of being 'right', it's just to show that there is research out there which suggests that this diet isn't for 'teeny tiny manlets' and that it's a perfectly reasonable approach to shifting some pounds?

mrthingyx said:
My point was that just because it's in a journal doesn't make it... anything. ;)

There is nothing WRONG with IF or whatever protocol you want to adopt. A lot of people here will be against it because:

a) As diets go, it's genuinely hard work;
b) It's pretty antisocial on your fasting days;
c) They don't want to imagine not eating for a day (I'm with them on this);
d) All of the above are compromises too many when more or less the same results can be had with a sensible and balanced diet.

So a sensible and balanced diet normally works out as the winner for most people.
Click to expand...

I agree with b/c/d but I've not found the fasting (thus far) to be that difficult!

W/r/t journals - I also agree, but thought it worthwhile to evidence that this diet wasn't a bad idea or dangerous as was tacitly implied.
 
This is the greatest thing I've ever read. How can anyone be so stupid they don't see that alternating 2200 and 600 call days averages at 1400 a day, or in other words, not enough.

Why are people so afraid of doing things normally?
 
Skeptic said:
What's your problem? I posted links to counter your claim of bro-science, that's all. It's not a question of being 'right', it's just to show that there is research out there which suggests that this diet isn't for 'teeny tiny manlets' and that it's a perfectly reasonable approach to shifting some pounds?
Click to expand...

Serious thread is serious.

Honestly if you're overweight then fair enough, it's your choice as to how you cut down on calories but it'll definitely harm your progress in the gym.
 
To be fair Skeptic, you've provided no rebuttal. All you've done is link to a couple of papers on the subject, which don't actually provide any conclusive benefits for a healthy/active person, then get very defensive.
 
Skillmister said:
I read it all. You are an amazing person.
Click to expand...

arnold-worst-thing.jpg
 
MoNkeE said:
To be fair Skeptic, you've provided no rebuttal. All you've done is link to a couple of papers on the subject, which don't actually provide any conclusive benefits for a healthy/active person, then get very defensive.
Click to expand...

I posted an intermittent fasting protocol and asked 'is this OK?'. I was then told that I was a bad idea and only suited to manlet and those who weren't scared to lose their sweet gainz.

I then posted a response saying that, actually, this was a perfectly reasonable path to go along to lose some weight - no better or worse than any other although some emerging evidence suggests that IF might have other health benefits.

What am I rebutting? :D

/sigh, I see what we're dealing with here now
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think you're dealing with? What do you want me to say?

P.S. I'm not getting defensive or taking this seriously at all (not mad). I wanted a bit of advice, and it has turned in to a debate, which is great because if there's a better way forward then I'm all for it.
 
Last edited:
It is wrong. It will lose weight, but that isn't what you're supposed to be striving for. You want to be losing fat, not weight. BIG difference. 'Cause if you drop weight unevenly and/or too rapidly, you will lose a lot of your muscle mass at the same time. This results in not looking leaner, but just looking like a smaller version of how you currently are.

Train hard, eat in a small calorie deficit ensuring you're still hitting your protein targets and lose no more than 1kg a week. Do these things, you'll look good.

Eat 600 calories and your body will be going catabolic, any training you do will be eating away at muscle to fuel your body, and you won't be supplying enough fuel for your body to repair and grow.
 
Whatever route you take, 1400kcals is too low. That is the point. It seems that you don't get this point.

You haven't started anything, people just think it's a bad idea unless you're massively overweight or small enough for it to actually be a healthy amount of sustenance.
 
Freefaller said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
The problem is you seem to think that because you are following some magical protocol 1400 calories is not actually 1400 calories. People who do IF don't massively under eat just because they are following IF.
 
Zefan said:
Whatever route you take, 1400kcals is too low. That is the point. It seems that you don't get this point.

You haven't started anything, people just think it's a bad idea unless you're massively overweight or small enough for it to actually be a healthy amount of sustenance.
Click to expand...

MoNkeE said:
It is wrong. It will lose weight, but that isn't what you're supposed to be striving for. You want to be losing fat, not weight. BIG difference. 'Cause if you drop weight unevenly and/or too rapidly, you will lose a lot of your muscle mass at the same time. This results in not looking leaner, but just looking like a smaller version of how you currently are.

Train hard, eat in a small calorie deficit ensuring you're still hitting your protein targets and lose no more than 1kg a week. Do these things, you'll look good.

Eat 600 calories and your body will be going catabolic, any training you do will be eating away at muscle to fuel your body, and you won't be supplying enough fuel for your body to repair and grow.
Click to expand...

Skillmister said:
The problem is you seem to think that because you are following some magical protocol 1400 calories is not actually 1400 calories. People who do IF don't massively under eat just because they are following IF.
Click to expand...

I understand all this. I don't think that this is some magic bullet, and never implied that it was!

I asked in my first post - was my plan correct correct?

Instead of people saying (which I now know to be true): 'your fasting days seem fine for ADF but you need to eat more on the eating days - you need to eat at your TDEE'.I was told that 600kcals EOD is bad - when really that was fine, it was the amount of kcals on the feed days that needed to be upped.
 
Sorry that our criticism didn't meet your expectations :'(

Help us to do better next time by taking a moment to fill you our feedback questionnaire - be sure to deposit it in the tray marked "DILLIGAF".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom