intermittent fasting

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have to get the whole paper again, but IIRC the weight gain was not statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay.

edit: I gather what I've responded to above has been removed, entirely-- so my comment above makes less sense than usual.

[AZK]

Can we get back on track? I'd like to hear what shemp/thremp/blarg/whoever elses opinion i respect but don't know/cbloom think about IF and if they've ever done anything like it? I could spend a lot of time on websites filled with IF/CF/Zone/Paleo junkies but I feel like my perspective gets skewed too easily on these sites...

[Jeff W]

Here's another study, found mixed/modest results(lost fat mass, some heart disease indicators increased, etc):

6

[Thremp]

Jeff,

Can you find research that is pertinent? After briefly reading through them, I think the longest study was 4 weeks, while the shortest was 6 days. That strikes me as utterly and totally pointless. In addition most of the diets aren't similar to what someone would eat (the thermic effect of protein is higher than with cards or fats, perhaps this would interesting to see if it matters how often you are fed protein or not). Lastly, some of the studies cover adult females eating 1000 calories a day... With a bunch of fat women... I doubt you'd be able to pick the difference out between the ones that ate 800 cals a day and 1000 cals a day with statistical significance over the time period.

These studies strike me as poorly constructed and not pertinent to the issue at hand. IIRC there are equal studies discussing PWO nutrition in the same light over equal time frames.

[Jeff W]

I don't know if there is perfect research out there applying to body building/athletics/etc. There is a dearth of good nutritional research in general, with many flawed studies.

The best research is probably in animals, showing improved life span from reduced meal frequencies. It is questionable how applicable those results are to humans.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we get back on track? I'd like to hear what shemp/thremp/blarg/whoever elses opinion i respect but don't know/cbloom think about IF and if they've ever done anything like it? I could spend a lot of time on websites filled with IF/CF/Zone/Paleo junkies but I feel like my perspective gets skewed too easily on these sites...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I've never done this stuff, and will never do this sort of thing. I think your plan is silly and goes pretty much against what is done with no research to really support the benefits of this. Not that this is a generally good idea in and of itself, but testing the benefits of diets especially when there will be a large metabolism shift. I'd be interested to see what long term proponents of this diet look like. Is there a macronutrient breakdown or would you just be eatin 1250 cals of 40/30/30 twice a day?

[shemp]

Jeff W, link 6 doesn't seem to do very well in providing the backing you are looking for in my view, either-- although I'd have to get off my butt and read the whole thing. Also, I'll respect AZK's wishes about his thread (although, I'd have thought a literature review was welcome).

AZK. Whatever works for you is what works for you. A sample of 1 is plenty. A lot of cultures use fasting, and fasting was presumably part of our evolutionary past. I'm not interested in fasting-- at all, but I'll admit to skepticism of a long-term eating strategy that increases hunger. Also, I think the Paleo adherents at Crossfit make all sorts of dubious claims-- but I don't have enough interest to run them down.

I look forward to hearing of your progress/results.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a macronutrient breakdown or would you just be eatin 1250 cals of 40/30/30 twice a day?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't shoot for an ideal macro nutrient breakdown, but I think it'd be a bad idea to eat too many high glycemic index carbohydrates because it would spike blood sugar etc and make one feel [censored]. The only carbohydrates I eat are from vegetables(mostly broccoli, celery, squash, asparagus, bell peppers, spinach, cauliflower) which are low glycemic load. I also eat a lot of "slow" protein i.e. calcium caseinate.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeff W, link 6 doesn't seem to do very well in providing the backing you are looking for in my view, either-- although I'd have to get off my butt and read the whole thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, the results were mixed because the 1 meal/day made people hungrier and increase heart disease risk indicators, etc, but the 1 meal/day diet actually had positive effect on body composition(fat vs. lean mass)

The differences were modest, though--I don't claim that reduced meal frequency has an advantage over nibbling patterns, just that there isn't a substantial difference and both are viable approaches to dieting.

[guids]

jeff,

i dont know if you understand why you are supposed to eat 6 meals a day, its more for teh prevention of loss of lean muscle mass, than anything else. Starving yourself is bad, unless you just want to be a skinny muscleless dude, losing weight is cals in vs cals out, little else, but if you dont want your body to lose a bunch of muscle eat often.