PDA

View Full Version : Alan Aragon's IF article


Steve Shafley
08-12-2007, 02:03 PM
http://alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html

I found this pretty interesting, and it also looks at most major studies regarding this topic.

Worth a read.

Summary



Meal Frequency



§ A haphazard/randomly variable meal frequency, not necessarily a lower frequency, negatively impacts thermogenesis, blood lipids, and insulin sensitivity.

§ Within a day, a higher frequency has no thermodynamic advantage over a lower frequency under controlled conditions.

§ The majority of controlled intervention trials show no improvement in body composition with a higher meal frequency.

§ Studies indicating the disappearance or lack of hunger in dieters occur in either complete starvation, or very low calorie VLCD regimes (800 kcal/day or less).

§ Hunger is a persistent problem with reduced meal frequency in non-starvation and other protocols with calories above VLCD levels.

§ For controlling appetite, the majority of research indicates the superiority of a higher meal frequency.

§ The body appears to be "metabolically primed" to receive calories and nutrients after an overnight fast. Breakfast is a particularly beneficial time to have dietary protein, since muscle protein synthethis rates are typically lowest at this time.

§ Overall, both experimental and observational research points to breakfast improving memory, test grades, school attendance, nutrient status, weight control, and muscle protein synthesis.



Intermittent Fasting



§ Animal research has shown a number of positive health effects of ADF and CR.

§ Human ADF research is scarce and less consistent than animal research, showing both benefits (insulin sensitivity is the most consistent outcome) and risks (impaired glucose tolerance in women).

§ So far, control groups are absent in all human ADF studies. Thus, no comparative conclusions can be drawn between ADF and linear caloric intake.

§ The validity of the single published controlled trial to date (Stote, et al) comparing 1 versus 3 meals is heavily confounded by an exceptionally high dropout rate in the 1-a-day group, and the use of BIA to measure body composition.

§ The 1-a-day group reported increasing hunger levels throughout the length of the trial, echoing the problem of hunger with a reduced meal frequency seen in other similar research.

§ Ramadan fasting (12-16 hours per day, sunrise to sunset) decreases daytime alertness, mood, wakefulness, competitive athletic performance, and increases the incidence of traffic accidents. It's difficult to determine the relative contributions of dehydration and a lack of food to these adverse phenomena.

§ The effects of exercise and meal frequency on body composition is an interesting but largely unexplored area of research.



Fasting & Exercise



§ Improvements in insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance (except in women undergoing ADF), bodyweight/bodyfat, blood pressure, blood lipids, and heart rate are commonly cited benefits of IF & CR.

§ All of the above benefits can be achieved by exercise, minus the downsides of fasting.

§ IF and CR have both been found to have neuroprotective effects by increasing BDNF levels.

§ A growing body of research shows that exercise can also increase BDNF, and the degree of effect appears to be intensity-dependent.

§ Based on the limited available data, resistance training performance, especially if its not particularly voluminous, might not be enhanced by preworkout EAA+CHO.

§ Despite equivocal performance effects of pre- or midworkout EAA+CHO, it minimizes muscle damage that occurs from fasted resistance training.

§ Immediate preworkout protein and/or EAA+CHO increases protein synthesis more than fasted resistance training with those substrates ingested immediately postworkout.

§ It’s possible that a partial fast (as short as 4 hours) before resistance training can negatively impact muscle protein status.

Mike ODonnell
08-12-2007, 05:22 PM
Is he assuming IF is an ADF protocol with only maintenance calories on the eating days? Hence a Calorie Restriction program?

Other than that:
- Agree on the 3 vs 5+ meals a day (not a big fan of that anyways) where there is no real improvements for higher frequency
- Still echo's the body building's world of paranoia on muscle protein catobolism and breakdown with any kind of fast over 4 hours
- Hypes PWO BCAA muscle protein synthesis, which I can see a good case for the whole PWO window (nothing new there)..although will depend on the type of training you do
- Stresses Intensity is a key factor - sure I agree

Other than that really gives more questions than answers....as too many variables up in the air. Which I think is the strong suit of IF, you make it work for you by seeing what provides results and energy in your life. I don't need human trials to know it has yielded positive results for my health and body composition....then again I am not trying to be a bodybuilder physique.

As for the whole PWO window thing...I used to be 100% sold on it...now I begin to wonder. Why is increased protein synthesis most important in the first 2 hours after a workout? Say you take 2 days off....are you not building muscle then? Doesn't protein synthesis continue on? Isn't that why we need daily protein? I've found that if I want to put on muscle....I need to workout only 2x a week...sometimes 10 days between repeats a bodypart....so if my muscles grow over 10 days, how important really is that whole 30min pwo window? Or is that still going back to the whole bodybuilding philosophy of protein every 3 hours including waking up in the middle of the night or your muscle will break down into nothing? Just thinking out loud.....

Gittit Shwartz
08-13-2007, 02:27 PM
"Human ADF research is scarce and less consistent than animal research, showing both benefits (insulin sensitivity is the most consistent outcome) and risks (impaired glucose tolerance in women)."
Can someone explain the relation between "insulin sensitivity" and "glucose tolerance"? I guess I always thought they were interchangable.

Robb Wolf
08-13-2007, 02:34 PM
Interesting stuff for sure, he is a smart, smart guy to be sure. Is IF a great thing for being heeeeyuge? Not sure...perhaps one day per week? Two days per week? Not sure but I do think the BB'ing boogey man of sliding into catabolism is waaaay over stated. I maintain a leaner, heavier physique than i ever have with less effort. That is 170lbs sopping wet but it's actually EASY now...I don't know if I could get BIG on this. 185...190 would be pretty damn big for me. That would stick me back up near a 600lb squat...might be worth a shot!

I remember when Devany's new site came out and it was getting very popular and T-nation interviewed him. He was down on PWO shakes, massive amounts of food and supplements. Not great for their bottom line. So Berardi and some tool-box who has a "background in evolutionary biology" come out and explain away paleo diets and shoo everyone back to their oatmeal and GROW!

Meat&Veggies, nuts&seeds, some fruit little starch...no sugar. Brief intense exercise. That shite delivers...I'm pretty sure IF augments beneficial elements of sound nutrition and exercise...no studies to "prove" it but honestly it's tough to "prove" things sometimes.

Good stuff.

Scott Kustes
08-13-2007, 03:31 PM
no studies to "prove" it but honestly it's tough to "prove" things sometimes.
The Study of One is all that matters anyway. Prove it to yourself and ignore the naysayers if it works.

Robb Wolf
08-14-2007, 07:36 AM
"Human ADF research is scarce and less consistent than animal research, showing both benefits (insulin sensitivity is the most consistent outcome) and risks (impaired glucose tolerance in women)."
Can someone explain the relation between "insulin sensitivity" and "glucose tolerance"? I guess I always thought they were interchangable.

Yea...they are. I have not looked at those studies closely...I suspect there might be some design flaws. It takes a LOT of time to really deconstruct a study and do the process justice.

I've had an idea for a paper I've been rattling around...is insulin anabolic or is insulin sensitivity anabolic? i know BB'ers use whacks of insulin to help partition nutrients (in addition to a few other items) but this is all mediated at the GLUT-4 transporter level....you do not need insulin for this, you need insulin sensitivity. This is much of the post WO feeding strategy....

Gettit! When are you coming to Chico to visit?! Tell Ido to email me!

Troy Archie
08-14-2007, 09:03 AM
Overall, both experimental and observational research points to breakfast improving memory, test grades, school attendance, nutrient status, weight control, and muscle protein synthesis.


I've been really sceptical of this lately. I've been IF'in during school this last term and had great results. I was way more focussed and felt like a sponge some days, sucking up books and notes. There were day's though that I felt too focussed and felt like I needed to be pryed out of what I was reading and studying. Days I had tests I felt much more focussed, relaxed, thurough and patient pretty much doing the test over 2-3 times. I fasted on a day on day off schedual and intend to do the same next term. This time around though, I'm going to track my tests and see if I score noticebly higher on the days I fast than the days I don't. Geek science work, gotta love it.

Robb Wolf
08-14-2007, 10:07 AM
I've been really sceptical of this lately. I've been IF'in during school this last term and had great results. I was way more focussed and felt like a sponge some days, sucking up books and notes. There were day's though that I felt too focussed and felt like I needed to be pryed out of what I was reading and studying. Days I had tests I felt much more focussed, relaxed, thurough and patient pretty much doing the test over 2-3 times. I fasted on a day on day off schedual and intend to do the same next term. This time around though, I'm going to track my tests and see if I score noticebly higher on the days I fast than the days I don't. Geek science work, gotta love it.


this is a really good point. Are we talking about an fasting adapted individual? Obviously this is far different than your standard insulin resistant individual who barely maintains consciousness between meals. This is similar to looking at fat adaptation in athletes after only one day. duration and timing of this stuff is pretty important.

Scott Kustes
08-14-2007, 11:34 AM
Troy,
I concur. My mind is sharper and more focused during a fast. Adaptation is probably key as Robb said. Looking back 2 years to when I started tinkering with shortened eating windows, no breakfast, and now 24-on/24-off, I would bet that I didn't feel sharper and more focused at first. I was probably much less pleasant to be around...yes, that's possible because everything is relative. As for weight gain, with a 6ish hour window, I put on about 10lbs of muscle from Dec-May without aiming for such....just lifting heavy, eating, and IFing.

Eric Jones
08-14-2007, 02:34 PM
I must also concur. I feel my best and try to train in a fasted state. In a fed state all I want to do is lay down. It makes total sense in a way of partitioning activation of sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous systems. I feel like I just had a Red Bull all day when fasted. I rarely get somatic hunger, even 8-10 hours into a fast too. I am down 3% body fat at the same weight (163lbs) after I started dabbling in IF about 2 months ago. No other significant changes in training.

This is all unequivocal. I was measured pre/post by hydrostatic weighing and Bod Pod. I used to take naps during the day but no longer need or want to. Bottom line is I am better off since I adopted an approximate 6 hour feeding window on most (5 of 7) days.

Mike ODonnell
08-14-2007, 03:27 PM
For anyone that actually wants to go through this thread....have fun

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3587831&page=46
Alan echos his same comments about IF on there as well as it was started by the leangains guy to get people excited about IF and his book......I think by the end it just turned into name calling...but probably some good entertainment and/or discussion in there somewhere....

Even Dr Eades jumped in talking to Fred Hahn...which pretty much answers the whole paranoia of losing muscle...
Hi Fred–

I don’t think IF would affect muscle mass much at all. If you go without food for a long period of time, say, several days, your metabolic system goes after your muscle mass to convert the protein stored there into the glucose you need to keep your blood glucose normal. This doesn’t happen in the short term. All the protein structures in the body draw from and add to the amino acid pool. When muscle breaks down the individual amino acids go into the pool from where they’re harvested by the system that converts them to glucose. When new muscle is made, the amino acids used to construct the muscle protein are drawn from the amino acid pool. One of the contributors to the AA pool is enzymes that are no longer needed and junk proteins that the body is cleansing from the cells. When one is fasting, one of the group of enzymes not really needed is the group of digestive enzymes that would otherwise be employed in digesting food. These enzymes break down and their amino acids enter the AA pool where the muscle can pick them up as needed. Also, during an IF, the body goes into ketosis. I posted a few months back on how ketosis stimulates the process of cellular cleansing by removing junk proteins from the cells. The amino acids from these proteins also enter the AA pool where they can be recycled by the muscle mass. So, even though new protein isn’t coming into the body minute by minute from the diet, there is plenty of substrate there in the AA pool to last until the next meal, which is, at most, only 24 hours away.

Second, although many of these studies were done using unhealthy subjects, a number were performed on people, both healthy and unhealthy, who were fasting for religious reasons. In all cases all healthy parameters evaluated improved.

Best–

Mike

Shannon Clark
08-15-2007, 09:59 PM
I must also concur. I feel my best and try to train in a fasted state. In a fed state all I want to do is lay down. It makes total sense in a way of partitioning activation of sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous systems. I feel like I just had a Red Bull all day when fasted. I rarely get somatic hunger, even 8-10 hours into a fast too. I am down 3% body fat at the same weight (163lbs) after I started dabbling in IF about 2 months ago. No other significant changes in training.

This is all unequivocal. I was measured pre/post by hydrostatic weighing and Bod Pod. I used to take naps during the day but no longer need or want to. Bottom line is I am better off since I adopted an approximate 6 hour feeding window on most (5 of 7) days.

I'm just curious, what kind of volume are you doing in your fasted workouts? And what % of total carb intake are you taking for the day in the eating window?

Eric Jones
08-16-2007, 11:05 AM
Great question. 2-3 Strength sessions per week and 2-3 CrossFit-style metcon, gymnastics, or kettlebell workouts per week. For the Strength sessions, typical Starting Strength stuff. 3-5 lifts, 3 core (squat or variation, deadlift, press variation, pendlay row, or weighted chin or dip) and some O-lifts or assistance exercises. 3-7 sets per exercise, 3-5 reps per set. About 21-25 total rep volume per exercise. Conditioning workouts; one grinder of a WOD (like the CrossFit Games WOD, 23.01 btw, just did it and it sucks) or two "girls" or a kettlebell-only WOD, or gymnastics practice, or sprint practice, or a combination of all of those. My strength and times in the WODs continue to progress.

As far as %CHO intake...I have no idea. I imagine I hold close to an 18-20 block Zone. I stopped measuring awhile ago. I eat very close to a strict Paleo for Athletes diet. Lots of big salads with veggies and lean meats. Lots of poultry. At least 4 whole fruits (about 8 blocks worth). If I were to educated guess it...probably between 30-40%CHO on strict days and about 60%CHO on cheat days.

Does that help?

Shannon Clark
08-16-2007, 10:36 PM
Great question. 2-3 Strength sessions per week and 2-3 CrossFit-style metcon, gymnastics, or kettlebell workouts per week. For the Strength sessions, typical Starting Strength stuff. 3-5 lifts, 3 core (squat or variation, deadlift, press variation, pendlay row, or weighted chin or dip) and some O-lifts or assistance exercises. 3-7 sets per exercise, 3-5 reps per set. About 21-25 total rep volume per exercise. Conditioning workouts; one grinder of a WOD (like the CrossFit Games WOD, 23.01 btw, just did it and it sucks) or two "girls" or a kettlebell-only WOD, or gymnastics practice, or sprint practice, or a combination of all of those. My strength and times in the WODs continue to progress.

As far as %CHO intake...I have no idea. I imagine I hold close to an 18-20 block Zone. I stopped measuring awhile ago. I eat very close to a strict Paleo for Athletes diet. Lots of big salads with veggies and lean meats. Lots of poultry. At least 4 whole fruits (about 8 blocks worth). If I were to educated guess it...probably between 30-40%CHO on strict days and about 60%CHO on cheat days.

Does that help?


For sure, that definitely helps. I was just interested because as I bring my carbs lower I've just been trying to get a feel for how my workout volume should change to correspond. I have done probably too much volume in the past so it likely needs to be brought down to make sure I don't start overdoing things.

I think in my earlier years I tried to justify eating more carbs by just working out more...which likely wasn't the smartest. Damn that oatmeal is too good. :rolleyes: But I'm moving more towards a Paleo direction with carb food choices and so far I'm feeling much better.

Steve Shafley
08-26-2007, 12:41 PM
Checking out some stuff on IronOnline led me back here, with some comments that the author of the Fast-5 protocol had on Alan Aragon's piece:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/message/723

Although this piece is referenced, it has little integrity and exhibits lots of bias. For example, the author references #15 and 16 as examples of increased hunger when eating "a single meal." Those studies actually looked at the difference between breakfast served as one portion or spread over five,evenly spaced portions, after which the subjects ate lunch. The studies only looked at people over the course of 5.5 hours on 2 days. (One day they ate one way, the other day, the other way.) When the men in the study ate the breakfast in divided portions, they ate less lunch. (#15 studied lean males, #16 studied obese males).

References 17 and 18 are cited, saying basically that every-other-day fasting and once-a-day eating are impractical because people may not like it. The author does not include, for example, that in reference 18, the people in the study lost 4% of their fat mass in 22 days, their fat metabolism went up by 6 grams per day, and their resting metabolic rate, despite all "everyone" says about it dropping with fasting, did not change from baseline.

Reference 19 is an interpretation of other studies funded in part by the Breakfast Advisory Board, which is an agency of the State of Florida Department of Citrus. The Breakfast Advisory Board is now called the American Breakfast Council, even though it's an agency of the State of Florida created to promote orange juice sales. (link).Another of the authors on the same paper, Judi Adams, is president of the Grain Foods Foundation and at the time was president of the Wheat Foods Council. It's no surprise that this interpretation of other studies came out "pro-breakfast."

Mr. Aragon spends a lot of time describing how hunger increases with decreasing meals, but disregards (a) that he's looking at a comparison of >3 meals a day to 3 meals a day and (b) his own statement that "hunger disappears" with fasting (which he calls "complete starvation" and then says it "is irrelevant.")

The next study he quotes (23) refers to people eating six meals a day. I don't see the meaning in including data from a six-meal-a-day study as evidence for or against intermittent fasting.

Mr. Aragon continues, saying reference 24 argues in favor of a post-fast breakfast. My reading of the article doesn't agree -- Layman is favoring more protein in breakfast for those who are eating breakfast and attempting to lose weight. Coincidentally, Layman's work was funded by Kraft Foods, the Cattlemen's Beef Board, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

I could go on, but Aragon's article just isn't worth the time. It is a difficult endeavor to pick apart these sorts of scholarly-looking articles, and it takes a lot of time. When you do, you may come to a completely different conclusion than the author. There are parts of Aragon's article I agree with: "Intermittent Fasting Human Research – Interesting But Inconclusive." That is, we don't know all we need to know about it.

More study should be done on IF, and on longer-term studies than anything that's been done so far. Part of the problem is that much of the data describing fasting means a prolonged fast -- going without food for three or more days done as one single stretch, one single change interrupting a well-established pattern. IF is an established pattern and relies on adaptations over two months or more, so until we start studying people who are adapted to one form or another, we're not seeing the real changes that can happen.

The abundance of misinformation and misguided interpretation means one should be skeptical of ALL nutritional advice (including mine), and especially those who are trying to sell something. The best judge you have is your own body. If somebody's happy doing what they're doing, I see no reason for them to change to Fast-5 or IF or anything. If they're not, Fast-5 or some other variation of IF may be the tool they need to get where they want to be. As Aragon's reference #17 says,

"Although the consumption of 3 meals/d [per day] is the most common pattern of eating in industrialized countries, a scientific rationale for this meal frequency with respect to optimal health is lacking."

If you have any questions about other parts or statements in this article, please let me know and I'll add more detail.

Best wishes,

Bert

Fast-5 LLC

Steve Shafley
08-26-2007, 12:52 PM
Alan's rebuttal:

http://alanaragon.com/pickled-red-herring

Scott Clark
08-26-2007, 02:11 PM
Alan's rebuttal:

http://alanaragon.com/pickled-red-herring

Bert Herring did come across looking like a nitwit. I have to give that one to AA.

Mike ODonnell
08-26-2007, 03:51 PM
Let them debate....fun to hear both sides of the stories...but in the end, I know what is working for me.

Stuart Mather
08-26-2007, 04:41 PM
Bert Herring did come across looking like a nitwit. I have to give that one to AA.

I'm curious why you think that. Reading and rereading AA's IF review, I couldn't help getting the impression that here was a guy who hasn't extended his own normal overnight fast to something greater than 15 hrs for at least a couple of months, but has carefully cherrypicked the available IF studies to give the impression that the research into IF as a pro health/bodycomp dietary approach was solid and inconclusive, rather than it being sparse, short term and not very well designed.

Seems like he has some kind of personal doubts about IF and set about reinforcing his own preconceptions in a fairly 'scholarly' way. Maybe he should actually do it for a couple of months himself. It just sounds so like the anti low carb 'literature' from a few years ago.

Bert Herring was only pointing this out. Why do you think he came across as a nitwit Scott ?

Stuart.

Robb Wolf
08-27-2007, 01:04 PM
Uhhh...Alan is the one reaching here. I was tempted to go through and check the references against what he wrote but, like Herring said, that is a long painful process.

AA starts using the same tone and pacing the vegetarian docs use when they debate Eades and Cordain: The Emotional Looser.

This is nice:
"Last time I checked, Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't giving hard copies of his book away for free."

No...They are not but the Doc IS giving the whole shooting match away:

http://www.fast-5.com/Fast-5-ebook100.pdf

I hope AA keeps it up...he will look even more the ass.

Alan Aragon
08-27-2007, 01:20 PM
I'm curious why you think that. Reading and rereading AA's IF review, I couldn't help getting the impression that here was a guy who hasn't extended his own normal overnight fast to something greater than 15 hrs for at least a couple of months, but has carefully cherrypicked the available IF studies to give the impression that the research into IF as a pro health/bodycomp dietary approach was solid and inconclusive, rather than it being sparse, short term and not very well designed. No cherrypicking on my part. If you find data challenging what I discussed please post it up. Also, no rat studies, please.Seems like he has some kind of personal doubts about IF and set about reinforcing his own preconceptions in a fairly 'scholarly' way. No disagreement at all that I had doubts about this before I investigated the research behind it. However, skepticism (not to be mistaken for cynicism) mixed with genuine curiosity & interest = great motivation for investigation. I think that "reinforcing" current beliefs for the sake of winning an argument is a good way to NEVER increase your knowledge & wisdom. Now, let's imagine that I indeed just wanted to win a debate. It would be pretty dumb for me to not exhaust my due diligence and get rightfully tagged by my opponents for data omission. Why leave undiscussed ammo for the other guy if you just want to win?Maybe he should actually do it for a couple of months himself. It just sounds so like the anti low carb 'literature' from a few years ago. I did try it for a short stint, but the hunger stayed, and strength dropped. True, I could have tried to hang in there for a longer duration, but it just didn't feel right. Also, I have certain scheduling/family factors that make IF unrealistic for me personally. Bottom line is that you can argue in favor for IF on the basis of convenience & the joy of binging, but nothing else. Until more scientific data crops up using relevant subjects & protocols, IF will remain a testimony-based support diet, like anything else without sci lit behind its superiority over other regimes. If you like it, hey, go ahead & do it. Just don't kid youself into thinking it's physiologically special.


PS - Here's one of my favorite quotes, words to live by in this industry:

"My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations." -Thomas Huxley, 1860

Alan Aragon
08-27-2007, 01:37 PM
Uhhh...Alan is the one reaching here. I was tempted to go through and check the references against what he wrote but, like Herring said, that is a long painful process.

AA starts using the same tone and pacing the vegetarian docs use when they debate Eades and Cordain: The Emotional Looser.

This is nice:
"Last time I checked, Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't giving hard copies of his book away for free."

No...They are not but the Doc IS giving the whole shooting match away:

http://www.fast-5.com/Fast-5-ebook100.pdf

I hope AA keeps it up...he will look even more the ass.

Thanks for the welcome, I hope asses like myself can fart around here on occasion.

Let me ask you this -- Because he's giving away an e-book version, do you think that hardcopies aren't being sold as a result of this publicity? Obviously, hard copies are still being sold by major book retailers for those who aren't inclined to read books via their computer screens. Given this, my position still stands, he has (as he put it), 'something to sell'. And to top it off, you can make donations to him via his website just in case being an NIH researcher/MD ain't gonna carry the Herrings through the lean times. Like I said, he's out to make a buck from his book like anyone else, and it was amusing to see him imply differently.

Stuart Mather
08-27-2007, 06:47 PM
I did try it for a short stint, but the hunger stayed, and strength dropped. True, I could have tried to hang in there for a longer duration, but it just didn't feel right. Also, I have certain scheduling/family factors that make IF unrealistic for me personally.

Alan, now we're getting somewhere. It might help if you actually described how you approached extending your normal overnight IF'ing. There are indeed pitfalls. Maybe we can help. And on the feelgood factor, I'm pretty sure Dean Ornish 'feels' an ultra low fat high ('healthy') carb diet feels right too. Feeling right, particularly in the short term, is a pretty poor reason to adversly judge a dietary approach. Making a transition to a diet that more closely suits the way we are designed after a lifetime of contrary habits is often going to take some doing.

Bottom line is that you can argue in favor for IF on the basis of convenience & the joy of binging, but nothing else. Until more scientific data crops up using relevant subjects & protocols, IF will remain a testimony-based support diet, like anything else without sci lit behind its superiority over other regimes. If you like it, hey, go ahead & do it. Just don't kid youself into thinking it's physiologically special.

Millions of years of the entire evolution of life on this planet may well not be 'scientific data' or 'relevant subjects & protocols' but it is considerably more convincing to this little black duck than the research community's meagre attempts to investigate the physiology of longer than post neolithic human overnight fasting thus far. All life IF's Alan, even you, right now. It has to, unless the particular organism gets up to eat while it is asleep. And for those organisms (and I mean herbivores too) that don't have access to shops fridges and cars, or many of the other so called 'fruits' of the agricultural revolution, getting food takes a lot more effort than it does modern humans. Not to mention that getting it at all at 'customary' meal intervals is just not on. So the duration of overnight (notwithstanding that some organisms naturally fast during the day, of course) daily fasting duration is naturally highly variable. In other words, all life naturally intermittently fasts. It has to. The first meal of the day is not called 'break.. fast' for nothing. The mistake modern humans seem to have made is that that meal should always (or ever) happen in the morning to maximize health/body comp (all other things being equal)

So on the contrary, the only reason to eat regular meals would be if humans are somehow 'physiologically special'. Alan, I think you and I agee at least on this - we're not :) . And I'm really curious about the 'convenience and joy of binging (sp)' line. It's certainly convenient. But why do you think it has anything to do with bingeing? I really think you didn't do it (or probably more likely, tried to ramp up the fasting time too fast) for long enough to have a clue.

But in any case, my 'cherry picking' suggestion stands. As Bert Herring points out, you could use the references you have quoted to come to a completely contrary view on IF to the one you have reached. 'Studies' are a bit like that Alan. You can pretty well use them to shore up just about any preconception you choose. The fields of scientific inquiry where the research is in its infancy, like IF, most of all.

PS - Here's one of my favorite quotes, words to live by in this industry:

"My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations." -Thomas Huxley, 1860

Ah, Thomas Huxley is indeed one of the more innappropriately quoted philosophers isn't he ? Alan, I'd urge you to reconsider your current understanding of the word 'facts'. Besides, I would have thought that it was patently obvious that the 'aspirations' in the quote could well be taken in your case to mean the either the 'scheduling/family factors' you referred to, or the short term hunger/strength loss you experienced,... or both. Quotes are dangerous things Alan. Just make sure the ones you choose aren't staring you in the face.

And just on your attempt to besmirch Bert Herring's credibility from the 'something to sell' perspective, I would point out that all research scientists have 'something' to sell. Reputation for one, which more often than not translates, in the form of funding and jobs, directly into monetary reward. Is it any wonder the aforementioned Dean Ornish is so determined to resist the general acceptance that 'low fat' is a big mistake, when he has so much to lose. You yourself will look a tad ridiculous when and if the scientific community directs enough money at long term longer overnight human fasting and that research shows it to be a body comp and health no brainer.

For those of us who have ramped up overnight fasting gently enough and long term enough (for me personally, nine months next week on a 17- 24 hr randomly varying low carb IF'ing approach, after five years just low carb), it matters little if that scientific endorsement of an evolutionary constant from the very dawn of life takes a very long time indeed. I and anyone who meets me can see the body comp/ health benefits first hand - with far, far less food, just as much if not more actual enjoyment of food, and considerably less time pushing heavy objects around. Alan, 'blackboxing' is infallible, if the only person you are trying to convince can't avoid the bottom line.

But you aren't trying to sensibly convince yourself of anything. By your own admission, you didn't do it for very long for a start. And not doing it for very long inevitably means that you couldn't have done it (ramped up the overnight fasting time) very gradually either. No wonder you personally crashed and burnt with it (hunger and strength loss ?). With all due respect (full marks for 'cherrypicking' your 'facts' at the very least) if your personal half cocked attempt at IF is anything like your ability to review the available scientific literature objectively, I'm afraid it doesn't count for much.

Alan, the 'scheduling and family factors' argument for you personally is persuasive. Everything else you've said about IF (IMHO)....isn't.

Stuart.

Alan Aragon
08-28-2007, 12:08 PM
Alan, now we're getting somewhere. It might help if you actually described how you approached extending your normal overnight IF'ing. There are indeed pitfalls. Maybe we can help. And on the feelgood factor, I'm pretty sure Dean Ornish 'feels' an ultra low fat high ('healthy') carb diet feels right too. Feeling right, particularly in the short term, is a pretty poor reason to adversly judge a dietary approach. Making a transition to a diet that more closely suits the way we are designed after a lifetime of contrary habits is often going to take some doing.



Millions of years of the entire evolution of life on this planet may well not be 'scientific data' or 'relevant subjects & protocols' but it is considerably more convincing to this little black duck than the research community's meagre attempts to investigate the physiology of longer than post neolithic human overnight fasting thus far. All life IF's Alan, even you, right now. It has to, unless the particular organism gets up to eat while it is asleep. And for those organisms (and I mean herbivores too) that don't have access to shops fridges and cars, or many of the other so called 'fruits' of the agricultural revolution, getting food takes a lot more effort than it does modern humans. Not to mention that getting it at all at 'customary' meal intervals is just not on. So the duration of overnight (notwithstanding that some organisms naturally fast during the day, of course) daily fasting duration is naturally highly variable. In other words, all life naturally intermittently fasts. It has to. The first meal of the day is not called 'break.. fast' for nothing. The mistake modern humans seem to have made is that that meal should always (or ever) happen in the morning to maximize health/body comp (all other things being equal)

So on the contrary, the only reason to eat regular meals would be if humans are somehow 'physiologically special'. Alan, I think you and I agee at least on this - we're not :) . And I'm really curious about the 'convenience and joy of binging (sp)' line. It's certainly convenient. But why do you think it has anything to do with bingeing? I really think you didn't do it (or probably more likely, tried to ramp up the fasting time too fast) for long enough to have a clue.

But in any case, my 'cherry picking' suggestion stands. As Bert Herring points out, you could use the references you have quoted to come to a completely contrary view on IF to the one you have reached. 'Studies' are a bit like that Alan. You can pretty well use them to shore up just about any preconception you choose. The fields of scientific inquiry where the research is in its infancy, like IF, most of all.



Ah, Thomas Huxley is indeed one of the more innappropriately quoted philosophers isn't he ? Alan, I'd urge you to reconsider your current understanding of the word 'facts'. Besides, I would have thought that it was patently obvious that the 'aspirations' in the quote could well be taken in your case to mean the either the 'scheduling/family factors' you referred to, or the short term hunger/strength loss you experienced,... or both. Quotes are dangerous things Alan. Just make sure the ones you choose aren't staring you in the face.

And just on your attempt to besmirch Bert Herring's credibility from the 'something to sell' perspective, I would point out that all research scientists have 'something' to sell. Reputation for one, which more often than not translates, in the form of funding and jobs, directly into monetary reward. Is it any wonder the aforementioned Dean Ornish is so determined to resist the general acceptance that 'low fat' is a big mistake, when he has so much to lose. You yourself will look a tad ridiculous when and if the scientific community directs enough money at long term longer overnight human fasting and that research shows it to be a body comp and health no brainer.

For those of us who have ramped up overnight fasting gently enough and long term enough (for me personally, nine months next week on a 17- 24 hr randomly varying low carb IF'ing approach, after five years just low carb), it matters little if that scientific endorsement of an evolutionary constant from the very dawn of life takes a very long time indeed. I and anyone who meets me can see the body comp/ health benefits first hand - with far, far less food, just as much if not more actual enjoyment of food, and considerably less time pushing heavy objects around. Alan, 'blackboxing' is infallible, if the only person you are trying to convince can't avoid the bottom line.

But you aren't trying to sensibly convince yourself of anything. By your own admission, you didn't do it for very long for a start. And not doing it for very long inevitably means that you couldn't have done it (ramped up the overnight fasting time) very gradually either. No wonder you personally crashed and burnt with it (hunger and strength loss ?). With all due respect (full marks for 'cherrypicking' your 'facts' at the very least) if your personal half cocked attempt at IF is anything like your ability to review the available scientific literature objectively, I'm afraid it doesn't count for much.

Alan, the 'scheduling and family factors' argument for you personally is persuasive. Everything else you've said about IF (IMHO)....isn't.

Stuart.First off, speculating over prehistoric eating habits is irrelevant to this discussion, where you essentially are taking issue with my review of scientific research. And it's very ironic how you point to the superiority of evolutionary speculation over scientific research. Why is this ironic? Because before the end of your speech, you attempt to relinquish the science card by saying, "You yourself will look a tad ridiculous when and if the scientific community directs enough money at long term longer overnight human fasting and that research shows it to be a body comp and health no brainer". If you can't keep a consistent position within a single post, how am I supposed to take your sage advice on how to convert my evil ways to the IF lifestyle?

Aside from laboring on about personal experiences, All you did here was avoid giving specific examples of how I "cherrypicked". If I indeed did so, you still haven't cited literature I allegedly omitted on purpose to support my case. Post it up & let's discuss it - otherwise your accusation is baseless. Then, you segue into an irrelevant issue with the person I quoted, while ignoring the content of the quote. From there, you wander out on more irrelevant tangents involving Ornish and Herring. If you're comprehending any sort of theme here, it's that our debate is over the research in my article, and the interpretation of that research. So far you've verbosely danced around it.

Stuart Mather
08-28-2007, 05:14 PM
First off, speculating over prehistoric eating habits is irrelevant to this discussion, where you essentially are taking issue with my review of scientific research. And it's very ironic how you point to the superiority of evolutionary speculation over scientific research. Why is this ironic? Because before the end of your speech, you attempt to relinquish the science card by saying, "You yourself will look a tad ridiculous when and if the scientific community directs enough money at long term longer overnight human fasting and that research shows it to be a body comp and health no brainer". If you can't keep a consistent position within a single post, how am I supposed to take your sage advice on how to convert my evil ways to the IF lifestyle?

Alan, ironic you think? You'll notice I said 'when and if'. I'm not relinquishing any 'card', science or otherwise. I'm not sure I even adopted any :) . Besides, I wasn't just talking about 'speculation over prehistoric' eating habits. The variability of daily fasts for any contemporary hunter gatherer humans, or indeed any carbon based life form on this planet whatsoever, (even bacteria) is easily observable.

Look Alan please grow up. Nobody's trying to 'convert your evil ways to the IF lifestyle'. As I pointed out, you IF now. Every living thing does, and always has. Modern (actually post neolithic if you want to get pedantic, which I certainly don't) humans have just got very skilful at indulging the undoubted pleasure of eating into an eating frequency which we were not really designed for. You and anyone else who eats as frequently as modern convenience allows is hardly going to drop dead. In fact by making wise food choices, you can even thrive. But the people on this forum (for one) who have made the transition to longer overnight fasts gradually enough and long term enough - at least a few months, remember you've been eating 'regular' meals for your whole life. It's not a change you can hope to realize the remarkable health and body comp benefits from by making it precipitous.



Aside from laboring on about personal experiences, All you did here was avoid giving specific examples of how I "cherrypicked". If I indeed did so, you still haven't cited literature I allegedly omitted on purpose to support my case. Post it up & let's discuss it - otherwise your accusation is baseless. Then, you segue into an irrelevant issue with the person I quoted, while ignoring the content of the quote. From there, you wander out on more irrelevant tangents involving Ornish and Herring. If you're comprehending any sort of theme here, it's that our debate is over the research in my article, and the interpretation of that research. So far you've verbosely danced around it.

No Alan, I think that's what you do want our debate to be over. I think I mentioned in my previous post that 'studies' ( particularly given the almost non existence of long term data on the physiological effects of extending the 'normal' [read 'contemporary'] overnight fast to at least 15 hrs) can be used by anyone with half a brain to support whatever position they choose. The human mind is a very clever tool for muddying the waters.

I simply don't need to try to support the idea of a regularly (and in my experience randomly longer) longer overnight fast by dredging through the current paucity of available research. If I had waited for the scientific community to dispel the backlog of hubris attached to the sorry low fat/ anti low carb dietary experiment of the last fifty years to adopt a low carb dietary approach, as you seem to be doing about IF, I'd only just be accepting the inevitable and realizing that human health/body comp is far better suited to low carb. I've been doing IF for long enough now to simply be living proof that extending the length of the overnight fast is a no brainer for human health/ body comp with the minimum amount of food. You do accept that eating food and the digestion of it is physiologically stressful in and of itself, and the less you need to achieve your bodycomp goals the better, don't you Alan? Sigh! perhaps you don't.

On this forum alone, there are far better read people on the details of the currently available research into why IF is such a good idea for human health/body comp than I. That's one of the reasons I like this forum.
But more importantly Alan, the people who frequent the IF section here are actually doing it sensibly themselves, and get to reap the benefits. You haven't and while you don't, you won't :) . Instead you've wasted an incredible amount of mental energy dredging through the available scientific research (lets avoid the word 'cherrypicking' shall we? You obviously have a problem with it - remember I never said it wasn't possible to find negatives about IF in the available research if you tried hard enough :) ) to find and dwell on the negatives.

What is most disturbing however, s that you claim your review of even the available research can only sensibly lead to one conclusion, that it is definitely not the most suitable dietary approach for human beings, and that it definitely doesn't offer extraordinary health/ body comp benefits over eating 'regular meals'. Yet people like Bert Herring, who has read exactly the same research, came to a completely different conclusion. Robb Wolf would certainly be similarly well read in the scientific IF literature. There are many others.

Alan, hat off to you for putting so much work into your review. But it is just blindingly obvious that you went into the exercise with crippling preconceptions. Now if you really do want to find if you are seriously mistaken, do it properly - ie. ramp up your own personal normal overnight fast gradually (no more than half an hour a week), and don't stop till you've been fasting at least sixteen hrs (the 'Lean Gains' guy's magic number) for at least three months.

Otherwise, please stop wasting our time. And if you decide to go on succumbing to the 'scheduling/ family factors' that seem to be a compelling factor in why don't choose to do it properly, all the best to you :) .

Stuart.

Alan Aragon
08-28-2007, 06:21 PM
And if you decide to go on succumbing to the 'scheduling/ family factors that seem to be a compelling factor in why don't choose to do it properly, all the best to you :) .

Stuart.This right here was the clincher. You crossed over into evangelism, now it's seriously tough to take you seriously. By the way, no one held a gun to your head to have a discussion with me that got you all fired up. I have no malice on my end, do what you do Stuart, all the best.

Stuart Mather
08-28-2007, 07:26 PM
This right here was the clincher. You crossed over into evangelism, now it's seriously tough to take you seriously. By the way, no one held a gun to your head to have a discussion with me that got you all fired up. I have no malice on my end, do what you do Stuart, all the best.

Evangelism? Alan, you can't be serious. This is an IF forum for heaven's sake :) .

Look, this discussion basically boils down to this: There is no research on the long term ( ie. longer than 12 months) physiological effects of regular overnight fasts of at least 15 hrs on humans. There is a very simple reason for that. Since the neolithic agricultural revolution, most humans can and do take advantage of being able to eat by the clock. Food is fun, after all. Basically we eat regularly...because we can.

There is some animal data from short time frame studies, and 'Ramadan' type human studies of really short fast duration. All the currently available research can be construed to have both pros and cons about those physiological effects.

There is also the easily observable natural variability of food availability to any species alive today which doesn't need any scientific expertise to be aware of. But as I said in my first post in this thread, the only really effective way to discover for yourself how much IF offers for both health and body comp is to make the transition to longer overnight fasting properly(ie. gradually enough for you personally), and for long enough.

Alan, I'm afraid you didn't do either.

As to wether you do decide in the future to reap those benefits, it's entirely up to you. Is that evangelism, or did I miss something?

Stuart.

Martin Berkhan
08-29-2007, 03:03 AM
Alan, what did Ryan contribute with?

Allen Yeh
08-29-2007, 04:52 AM
Until more scientific data crops up using relevant subjects & protocols, IF will remain a testimony-based support diet, like anything else without sci lit behind its superiority over other regimes. If you like it, hey, go ahead & do it. Just don't kid youself into thinking it's physiologically special.



I guess the problem I have with a statement like this is that you are relying on studies that are typically 10-40 years behind what has already come and maybe gone in the "fitness industry." Like Stuart said, it's taken this long for current literature to say "Hm...maybe super high carbohydrate diets might not be the best thing for long term health."

It's not just the nutrition angle but training also, how many times have you heard "My doctor says squats are bad for your knees?" Then you go out and look for literature to say "squats aren't bad for your knees because of..XYZ." Then you have people come back and say "Well ABC says this so squats must be bad."

It's nice to have science back you up but it doesn't seem to me that guys like Charles Poliquin, Mike Boyle, Alwyn Cosgrove, Dan John, Dave Tate, Mark Vestergen, Pavel T., bodybuilders (natural or not)...etc wait for the newest studies in order to do what they think is best for their athletes/clients or themselves.

Eric Jones
08-29-2007, 12:21 PM
Black Box, for the win!

Just like a computer though; if you put crap in, you get crap out

Alan Aragon
08-29-2007, 12:49 PM
Evangelism? Alan, you can't be serious. This is an IF forum for heaven's sake :).Nice. I like this humor, you have to be able to laugh at dietary zealotism. Stuart might not be too outa his mind after all.

Alan Aragon
08-29-2007, 12:53 PM
Alan, what did Ryan contribute with?Ryan did part of the research collection & organization of concepts, as well as most of the editing. If you're wondering why he's not around, he prefers not to discuss subjects over the net that tend to turn into heated pissing matches.

Martin Berkhan
08-29-2007, 01:33 PM
Ryan did part of the research collection & organization of concepts, as well as most of the editing. If you're wondering why he's not around, he prefers not to discuss subjects over the net that tend to turn into heated pissing matches.


I see. And you had no second thoughts whatsoever on choosing a partner for the article, that himself, just like you, had a severely negative experience with IF?

I'm not asking this in order to prove a reference bias, I'm just wondering how appropriate you think it is to have two writers, whom both had a very negative experience with IF, writing an article on the topic? Wouldn't it have been more fitting to have a neutral partner? Not taking a piss on the article, I think it's pretty good overall.

Alan Aragon
08-29-2007, 01:52 PM
I see. And you had no second thoughts whatsoever on choosing a partner for the article, that himself, just like you, had a severely negative experience with IF?

I'm not asking this in order to prove a reference bias, I'm just wondering how appropriate you think it is to have two writers, whom both had a very negative experience with IF, writing an article on the topic? Wouldn't it have been more fitting to have a neutral partner? Not taking a piss on the article, I think it's pretty good overall.I chose Ryan for a number of reasons. He's been an unofficial student of mine for some time now, way before the IF thing started garnering a buzz on the net. Also, I came to find out he's an all around good guy. He's an academically astute guy who has a passion for all things fitness, and he has a lot of experience as well. I didn't at all factor in his personal experience with IF into the equation, nor did I factor mine. In fact, I specifically avoided mentioning personal testimony in the article, because I wanted to stick with what's been observed in research. And once again, if anyone has an issue with the research (or human research you think I missed), we can discuss it.

Alan Aragon
08-29-2007, 02:32 PM
By the same token, Martin, if you wanted to co-author a follow-up IF article with me, I would do the exact same with you and establish from the outset that we leave out personal testimony. I know full well that you're pro-IF, but that's irrelevant to an examination of the existing research data. If for example, we collabed, I wouldn't factor in your personal testimony - & I would expect you to do the same if it was a scientific review.

Martin Berkhan
08-29-2007, 03:03 PM
Ok, sounds good, Alan. I don't really have any issues with the article, since it is pretty objective indeed, but it's hard to apply some of the ref's cited to the fitness/health conscious crowd that'll be reading the article (I'm thinking about the appetite studies). But you guys did a good job, don't get me wrong.

And I'd rather say I'm pro-what-ever-the-hell-works than "pro-IF".

Alan Aragon
08-29-2007, 03:16 PM
Thanks Martin... And likewise about individual circumstances/needs/response - I wouldn't assume that you have a single protocol or set meal frequency that's applied across the board. In our business, I agree that clients' results take precedent over protocol presumptions.

Stuart Mather
08-29-2007, 03:34 PM
I see. And you had no second thoughts whatsoever on choosing a partner for the article, that himself, just like you, had a severely negative experience with IF?

I'm not asking this in order to prove a reference bias, I'm just wondering how appropriate you think it is to have two writers, whom both had a very negative experience with IF, writing an article on the topic? Wouldn't it have been more fitting to have a neutral partner? Not taking a piss on the article, I think it's pretty good overall.

Alan, just curious wether your research partner's 'negative experience' with IF stemmed from going into it as sloppily as you did. Btw. if you do at any future point decide to actually do more sensible personal investigation, Martin's probably your man. And for what it's worth, I for one do hope that your excellent review of the currently available woeful paucity of good research data on the physiological effects of extending 'normal' overnight human fasting duration, doesn't get in the way of you being open to that.

Stuart.

Alan Aragon
08-29-2007, 04:36 PM
Alan, just curious wether your research partner's 'negative experience' with IF stemmed from going into it as sloppily as you did. Btw. if you do at any future point decide to actually do more sensible personal investigation, Martin's probably your man. And for what it's worth, I for one do hope that your excellent review of the currently available woeful paucity of good research data on the physiological effects of extending 'normal' overnight human fasting duration, doesn't get in the way of you being open to that.

Stuart.Honestly we never discussed the details of his IF experience, I frankly wasn't that interested. Our conversations mainly consist of training & Asian girls.

Stuart Mather
08-29-2007, 04:48 PM
Honestly we never discussed the details of his IF experience, I frankly wasn't that interested. Our conversations mainly consist of training & Asian girls.

Fair enough. But why don't you ask him?

Stuart.

Robb Wolf
08-30-2007, 07:20 PM
Thanks for the welcome, I hope asses like myself can fart around here on occasion.

Let me ask you this -- Because he's giving away an e-book version, do you think that hard copies aren't being sold as a result of this publicity? Obviously, hard copies are still being sold by major book retailers for those who aren't inclined to read books via their computer screens. Given this, my position still stands, he has (as he put it), 'something to sell'. And to top it off, you can make donations to him via his website just in case being an NIH researcher/MD ain't gonna carry the Herrings through the lean times. Like I said, he's out to make a buck from his book like anyone else, and it was amusing to see him imply differently.


Wholly late to the party Batman! Go away a few days a look what happens!

Alan-
You obviously have a think skin and a good sense of humor...good stuff. Fart noises are highly prized around here, even if one needs to use an armpit to pull it off.

This is already a long thread...I'm not sure how up for this I am...

In the Quote above, and in a related quote on your site, you make the point that because Herring has something for sale his motives are tainted. That freebie is simply a marketing ploy to up-sell to the hard copy books. It is a marketing ploy, one that works and your statement sounds like nothing more than a Straw Man attack (http://people.vanderbilt.edu/%7Erobert.talisse/StrawMan_argumentation.pdf): Question the motives, question the Man.

We could make a similar argument against Linux (http://www.linux.org/). They offer a free version, and a pricey support driven paid version. Should I question their motives because they have an efficacious technology for sale and use various marketing techniques to forward their cause? Obviously financial motives can influence the message one conveys, however I never remember either Dr. Herring, Martin or myself portraying IF as anything other than something to experiment with and that other methods may be superior, given individual circumstances. To my knowledge no one has 30 pages of rolling HTML promising "Guerrilla Traps" and results on par with Winstrol. My collected writings are for sale in the Pmenu store...I think $2.50/ download...Am I now perpetually full of shit because of my foray into capitalism?

That's one issue. The other issue is the notion of science and how it is apparently THE SOURCE of all things experiential. I worked as a bench scientist for 6 years, a good stint of that in one of the top cancer research centers. My lab generated data for studies like the Nurses Health Study, Framingham and others. Once the data was generated it was farmed out to statisticians who would massage said data to fit expectations. Hence the Meme of the low fat diet and over 50 billion dollars of wasted public health research.

If we are to test and scientifically prove IF where do we start? A 12 hr fast? 15? What proportions of food...low carb, low fat...vegan? "proving" anything in the strictest scientific sense borders on the preposterous for any type of open dynamic system. Does that mean experimentation and observation are worthless? absolutely not. Here is a piece from an upcoming Crossfit Journal from Jeffrey Glassman PhD.:


"Whenever you read, “Most scientists believe …” you’re not reading about science. Most? Science is not a democracy; it’s not about voting; nor is it about consensus. Believe? Nor is science a belief system.



When Galileo, Newton and Einstein made their great contributions, they were all alone, one man against the whole of the keepers of knowledge.



Neither is science about peer review, nor credentials. The DNA model was published expressly avoiding peer review. Einstein was a patent clerk.



Science is about models of the real world that have predictive power. Models come in four flavors: Conjectures, Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws, in order of predictive power. Briefly, Conjectures need assert no prediction, and may not even fit all the data. A Hypothesis is a Conjecture that fits all the data (it is not immediately refutable) and makes at least one significant (novel) prediction, but none of its predictions has been validated. A Hypothesis becomes a Theory when at least one significant prediction has been validated, but some possible consequences or predictions have not been tested. A Law is a Theory in which all possible predictions have been validated."



Related to the above heiracy: conjecture>hypothesis>theory>law
research related to CRAN and intermittent fasting lead to conjecture regarding performance health and longevity. This is an almost PURELY empirical state of data collection and observation. Based on this conjecture, hypotheses ( I think that is a word) were put forward concerning conditions such as insulin sensitivity, ketosis, recovery etc. On this forum and others, people ranging from strongman competitors to triathletes have experimented with various IF protocols and found the experience to be favorable and to match predictions put forward by the hypothesis. I know, I know...personal anecdotes, you are not a fan of those but at present "we", the folks tinkering with this stuff, are 2 significant steps down the road towards establishing some solid models for this. Your Contribution?



That's where I'm at on this topic and where the inquiry is going. We have 20 people in a clinical trail tracking comprehensive blood chemistries, androgen levels and nutrient timing. I'll publish that here when it's completed and it will go in the book I'm working on.




You and Martin can write a sonata to the current literature...it will be 20 years before a sufficient body of evidence is accrued via academics that will rival the paltry information we have on this site alone. Have Fun.

Alan Aragon
08-30-2007, 10:46 PM
Wholly late to the party Batman! Go away a few days a look what happens!

Alan-
You obviously have a think skin and a good sense of humor...good stuff. Fart noises are highly prized around here, even if one needs to use an armpit to pull it off."think skin" - I like that, it's catchy.This is already a long thread...I'm not sure how up for this I am...

In the Quote above, and in a related quote on your site, you make the point that because Herring has something for sale his motives are tainted. That freebie is simply a marketing ploy to up-sell to the hard copy books. It is a marketing ploy, one that works and your statement sounds like nothing more than a Straw Man attack (http://people.vanderbilt.edu/%7Erobert.talisse/StrawMan_argumentation.pdf): Question the motives, question the Man.

We could make a similar argument against Linux (http://www.linux.org/). They offer a free version, and a pricey support driven paid version. Should I question their motives because they have an efficacious technology for sale and use various marketing techniques to forward their cause? Obviously financial motives can influence the message one conveys, however I never remember either Dr. Herring, Martin or myself portraying IF as anything other than something to experiment with and that other methods may be superior, given individual circumstances. To my knowledge no one has 30 pages of rolling HTML promising "Guerrilla Traps" and results on par with Winstrol. My collected writings are for sale in the Pmenu store...I think $2.50/ download...Am I now perpetually full of shit because of my foray into capitalism?This is what you're missing. I responded to Herring's implication that he didn't have 'something to sell', when he clearly does. Simple as that. I passed no judgement on capitalism itself, but I did criticize his denial of participating in it.That's one issue. The other issue is the notion of science and how it is apparently THE SOURCE of all things experiential. I worked as a bench scientist for 6 years, a good stint of that in one of the top cancer research centers. My lab generated data for studies like the Nurses Health Study, Framingham and others. Once the data was generated it was farmed out to statisticians who would massage said data to fit expectations. Hence the Meme of the low fat diet and over 50 billion dollars of wasted public health research. Except... You can still track controlled data at a concurrent time period to refute or at least seriously challenge all that crap. NHS, Framingham, & others were simply easy media news. The smaller RCTs are boring to hear about.If we are to test and scientifically prove IF where do we start? A 12 hr fast? 15? What proportions of food...low carb, low fat...vegan? "proving" anything in the strictest scientific sense borders on the preposterous for any type of open dynamic system. Does that mean experimentation and observation are worthless? absolutely not. Here is a piece from an upcoming Crossfit Journal from Jeffrey Glassman PhD.:
fine, waiting for the punch line... Related to the above heiracy: conjecture>hypothesis>theory>law
research related to CRAN and intermittent fasting lead to conjecture regarding performance health and longevity. This is an almost PURELY empirical state of data collection and observation. Based on this conjecture, hypotheses ( I think that is a word) were put forward concerning conditions such as insulin sensitivity, ketosis, recovery etc. On this forum and others, people ranging from strongman competitors to triathletes have experimented with various IF protocols and found the experience to be favorable and to match predictions put forward by the hypothesis. I know, I know...personal anecdotes, you are not a fan of those but at present "we", the folks tinkering with this stuff, are 2 significant steps down the road towards establishing some solid models for this. Your Contribution?You're goddamned right it's anecdotal. And I can throw the same argument right back at you with 3 decades and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cases of bodybuilders who got in great shape doing the opposite in terms of meal frequency. I'm not saying it's optimal, in fact it probably makes negligible difference if at all. Look at the hundreds of Body for Life contestants playing the meal frequency game to the opposite extreme. Does this mean it must be optimal to have 3 meals & 3 shakes per day to get a badass physique? Hell no. Anecdote, anecdote, have you any truth.That's where I'm at on this topic and where the inquiry is going. We have 20 people in a clinical trail tracking comprehensive blood chemistries, androgen levels and nutrient timing. I'll publish that here when it's completed and it will go in the book I'm working on. Sounds great. What type of trial are you running? Does it have a placebo/control group for comparative purposes, or is it merely observational? You and Martin can write a sonata to the current literature...it will be 20 years before a sufficient body of evidence is accrued via academics that will rival the paltry information we have on this site alone. Have Fun.
Hey, leave Martin out of this, he's innocent :D

Alan Aragon
08-30-2007, 11:11 PM
And if you place such a high premium on personal anecote, then can you explain this personal anecdote of yours?

"If one is truly emulating the eating patterns of our paleo ancestors the grazing pattern is pretty much it. Even bad diets, when consumed in small frequent meals, provide better blood lipid results vs large gorging meals. Not that there were not the occasional celebrations and large amounts of food...just not all the time.

If your goals are to gain muscle and optimize performance i would try to eat frequent small meals. That is my goal but I have recently started grad school and have several other projects cooking. I have dropped from a consistent 6 meals/day to a very sporadic eating pattern. My reward has been to loose about ten lbs. of muscle!"

http://board.crossfit.com/showpost.php?p=65658&postcount=3

Robb Wolf
08-31-2007, 06:51 AM
Alan-
Purely observational, no controls as yet but we are looking at funding for a metabolic ward trial to hem in as many variables as possible. Still not a gold standard IMO and for many of the questions surrounding IF it would take a years long intervention to get concrete answers...but it's a start.

One major thing I'd like to look at is a decrease in oxidative damage in pre-Huntingtons individuals. The CAG repeat has been successfully attenuated in mice...it would be amazing if this works in humans. I think this can be tracked using a micro-array...all we need is time and money!

Mike ODonnell
08-31-2007, 09:55 AM
I spend 3 days on the beach in FL killing brain cells with drinks that come with fancy umbrellas and miss out on all the fun....

Interesting stuff, although I would pose the question how can one classify something as broad as "IF" a failure or success based on the amount of variables present (length of fast, frequency of fast, type of workouts...glycolitic 8-12 reps vs strength based, personal insulin resistance, inflammation issues, overall state of health, macronutrient breakdown...low carb, mod carb, high carb, bingeing....etc.) It's almost like saying I tried working out but didn't get any muscle.....well that's broad.

Anyways I think we can all agree there are more than one way to get fat off a monkey and muscle on an elephant (still hungover so no idea where that came from). Zone works.....frequent meals work.....IF works.....Nutrisystem works. We can debate this till the day is long and my beer is gone but facts are facts in that people can see results and be more consistent long term on an IF approach than trying to make your average housewife cook 5x a day and eat chicken every meal...outside of the bodybuilding universe that isn't possible. And if you want to say that it is....then why is the obesity epidemic growing and growing when the consistent meal approach has been preached and preached for god knows how many years. It flat out is not working....why? Where are my scientific data? I saw it walking down the beach in FL for 3 days.....

Anyways as dealing with more the general public with a sad state of health and lists of increasing diseases especially tied back to digestive disorders and autoimmune problems....IF gives them hope and a realistic plan they will and can do...I've seen it first hand as most have failed for years on other multi-meal approaches. I don't have to wait around for science to prove what I already see first hand....and that's my only concern in life is making people's lives better and healthier. If science can come along one day to prove that approach works....great...but not going to wait 20 years for it. If may not be for everyone....but the flexibility and variations can sure cover most people.

Alan Aragon
08-31-2007, 12:45 PM
Anyways as dealing with more the general public with a sad state of health and lists of increasing diseases especially tied back to digestive disorders and autoimmune problems....IF gives them hope and a realistic plan they will and can do...I've seen it first hand as most have failed for years on other multi-meal approaches. I don't have to wait around for science to prove what I already see first hand....and that's my only concern in life is making people's lives better and healthier. If science can come along one day to prove that approach works....great...but not going to wait 20 years for it. If may not be for everyone....but the flexibility and variations can sure cover most people.Fine & dandy, but in the end, you just voiced yet another anecdote. Anecdotes are cheap. You can find them everywhere, for every dietary approach.

Brian Shanks
08-31-2007, 12:50 PM
Would just like to add my own ignorant two sense!
I had read about IF from a couple of different places before coming here.
I am what you would call a nutrition hobbies. I work...I show up to a regular day job. My only clients are my family who ignore me now.

OK back to the topic. I am by no means an IF fanatic. Heck I have only been doing a month now. Why am I doing? Well frankly I am curious. I have read stuff about it, and wanted to see what it would do for me. So I am doing an anecdotal experiment.

What I have learned so far? Hmmm nothing yet! I haven't really noticed any great benefits, but I will give it another 6 months to a year before I determine whether it is good or bad.

I guess my main point is, I am curious about it, so after reading what I could find, I took the next step and am trying it.

The same thing I did about changing my eating habits to Paleo. But I can tell you after about 2 years, I will remain paleo until they stick me in a nursing home and take away my choice.

Cheers

Brian

Alan Aragon
08-31-2007, 01:17 PM
The same thing I did about changing my eating habits to Paleo. But I can tell you after about 2 years, I will remain paleo until they stick me in a nursing home and take away my choice.

Cheers

Brianpaleo + pasta + pizza = pure gold

Alan Aragon
08-31-2007, 01:23 PM
Alan-
Purely observational, no controls as yet but we are looking at funding for a metabolic ward trial to hem in as many variables as possible. Still not a gold standard IMO and for many of the questions surrounding IF it would take a years long intervention to get concrete answers...but it's a start.

One major thing I'd like to look at is a decrease in oxidative damage in pre-Huntingtons individuals. The CAG repeat has been successfully attenuated in mice...it would be amazing if this works in humans. I think this can be tracked using a micro-array...all we need is time and money!Should be interesting, nevertheless. Will it be a eucaloric or hypocaloric treatment, & if so, to what degree? What sort of feed/fast interval are you thinking of running? Structured exercise protocol in the cards for this trial? Me is curious.

Mike ODonnell
08-31-2007, 02:06 PM
Fine & dandy, but in the end, you just voiced yet another anecdote. Anecdotes are cheap. You can find them everywhere, for every dietary approach.

Who are we all kidding.....science has proven that obesity is a virus passed along....hope they find a cure soon....<fingers crossed in gleeful anticipation>

Stuart Mather
08-31-2007, 06:06 PM
Hi Alan, just curious if you've had a chance to ask your research partner about the transition/duration details of his IF experience? Purely anecdotal, I know....

Stuart.

Mike ODonnell
08-31-2007, 07:22 PM
Hi Alan, just curious if you've had a chance to ask your research partner about the transition/duration details of his IF experience? Purely anecdotal, I know....

Stuart.

I'd say that is the most important question since some people associate IF directly in association with CR, and as you will find many on this board who will say that is not the case at all. (even if it IF does promote a lower daily maintenance calorie intake compared to multiple eating all day long). Plus along with all the other variables it's rediculous to say that "IF" as a whole will not work..only that specific variables during an IF experiment negatively affected one's performance or body composition and without properly defining all the variables and ignoring any possible changes that need to be made to meet one's specific needs....well is just plain silly. Not too mention the word "intermittent" doesn't mean every day or exactly a set amount of hours.