intermittent fasting

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet "eat 2 meals/day spread 6-8 hours apart followed by 16 to 18 hours of fasting" is one of the most common meal schedules in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt. That is how I ate before I started dieting. Years of eating that was habituated me to that pattern, which is likely why it's much easier for me to eat that way now.

IIRC, a "hardcore" IF protocol is more like 32-48 hours of fasting, but I don't see sufficient reason to follow a radical schedule like that. My interest in IF research is primarily the freedom from the old 5-6 meal/day dogma.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet "eat 2 meals/day spread 6-8 hours apart followed by 16 to 18 hours of fasting" is one of the most common meal schedules in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt. That is how I ate before I started dieting. Years of eating that was habituated me to that pattern, which is likely why it's much easier for me to eat that way now.

IIRC, a "hardcore" IF protocol is more like 32-48 hours of fasting, but I don't see sufficient reason to follow a radical schedule like that. My interest in IF research is primarily the freedom from the old 5-6 meal/day dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like a weak cop out to follow a very poor diet.

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]
AZK:

"I'm gonna try to do it this week starting out as fasting til noon"

OK, so you're gonna skip breakfast this week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but I was going to stop eating by 6pm... so I was going to get all my food in between 12-6. After reading more I think I'll do something more along the lines of MWF eat from 2-7PM (working out at noon) and T/Th I'll try and do 12-6 or later if I find it easy enough.... No promises on the weekend....

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No doubt. That is how I ate before I started dieting. Years of eating that was habituated me to that pattern, which is likely why it's much easier for me to eat that way now. IIRC, a "hardcore" IF protocol is more like 32-48 hours of fasting, but I don't see sufficient reason to follow a radical schedule like that. My interest in IF research is primarily the freedom from the old 5-6 meal/day dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like a weak cop out to follow a very poor diet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please link to scientific studies showing the metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency.

I've lost 7" off my waist so far and feel great following my "very poor diet". Sample size of one and all, but that's all that matters for dieting--finding a routine that you can live with on a caloric deficit.

[Jeff W]

Here are some studies showing no effect from increased meal frequency:

1

2

3

4

5

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
but that's all that matters for dieting--finding a routine that you can live with on a caloric deficit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no, not really. You can gain weight on a caloric deficit if you are very careful (very lax?). Judging by your comments any research I'd present would likely be wasted.

Perhaps looking for Berardi and "A New View of Energy Balance" and some rudimentary reading on the subject of insulin sensitivity etc. would be helpful for you.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Judging by your comments any research I'd present would likely be wasted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a weak copout to avoid defending your position.

[shemp]

I only looked at the very first abstract. And apparently I can't read because it appears to suggest the opposite of what you are arguing.

[Jeff W]

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

[shemp]

Heh. Right. Which is why the conclusion is: If feeding frequency alters metabolic efficiency then it does so by mechanisms not readily discernible in a whole body calorimeter.

I assume you saw the part which appears to directly contradict your claim "studies showing no effect from increased meal frequency": a progressive small weight gain was observed throughout the 2-week period on the two-meal-a-day system.