PDA

View Full Version : Eades post on IF....ruh roh....


Ari Kestler
03-03-2008, 10:46 AM
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting-rad-or-fad/

w/f/s

Thoughts?

Mike ODonnell
03-03-2008, 11:41 AM
The intermittently fasted group of animals despite consuming the same number of calories as the ad libitum fed group enjoyed all the health and longevity benefits of calorically restricted animals. In essence, they got their cake and ate it, too. They got all the benefits of CR plus some without the CR.

Intermittent fasting (IF) reduced oxidative stress, made the animals more resistant to acute stress in general, reduced blood pressure, reduced blood sugar, improved insulin sensitivity, reduced the incidence of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, and improved cognitive ability. But IF did even more. Animals that were intermittently fasted greatly increased the amount of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) relative to CR animals. CR animals don’t produce much more BDNF than do ad libitum fed animals.

IF is NOT the same as CR. IF improves markers for health and disease prevention....ok sounds good so far.

If this is what you are referring to:
IF fasting, by significantly decreasing thermogenesis, decreases kcal out because our thermogenesis is what burns a whole lot of our calories. If the kcal in are decreased by the IF and the kcal out are decreased by the diminished thermogenesis brought about by the IF, it’s no wonder the IF doesn’t result in a lot of weight loss for most people.

The one question that remains unanswered is whether or not the intermittent fast followed in a low-carbohydrate way will lead to these same problems. To me, that point is kind of moot. Why? Because I looked at the IF as a strategy that allowed me to eat a lot of high carb foods that I would normally avoid and not pay the health consequences for it. If I’m going to limit myself to low-carb foods, why go on the IF? I can get the same results just following a regular, whole-food, low-carb diet without having to eat only every other day.

It’s looking like the intermittent fast is another of those ideas in science that look good in animal studies them not so good in human studies, proving once again that rats and mice aren’t simply furry little humans. And it appears - for humans, at least - that the intermittent fast is indeed beginning to look like the reality of a late-night gimmicky infomercial: long on promises, short on delivery. I suspect that it is also a cautionary tale about the applicability of caloric restriction studies to humans as well.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news that the IF didn’t live up to its early billing, but that’s the way science sometimes works.
IF on crappy foods = crappy results. Yeah no shocker there. Does eating healthy foods all day with no IF give weight loss? Sure. Quality of food whether IF or whole day is going to be the #1 factor. IF reduces metabolism? Sure it can, but weight loss is cal in/cal out....so I eat less on IF than I would all day long with the same foods...I can still lose weight.

I think he is talking about mainstream people who think they can IFOC (IF on Crap) and look like a supermodel. Aint gonna happen. Food quality is still important. But long term benefits of IF far outweigh anything eating 6x a day can promote.

I actually did a post today on my blog about why I IF.....it's a choice and I know how to manipulate my foods to get results. So if I can (and many others) make the right food choices, IF, lose fat, gain muscle, lower metabolism (is that a bad thing if you are still losing fat and gaining muscle?), consume less calories (leading to possible life extension as seen in all the CR studies...less you eat...longer you can live) and still have high performance levels....how does it not work? That and there is more than one way to IF....every 3rd day, daily, 1x a week, 16hours, 24 hours, and on and on....lots of possibilities to get results for many different people.

Ari Kestler
03-03-2008, 12:02 PM
Right. The article was all butter until about the last 1/4 of the page. I assumed he was referring to IFOC; but later on he mentions how even on his diet, he prefers his version to IFing... I'm not bashing IFing by any means, it has certainly improved my quality of life...just thought it was an interesting piece...

Mike ODonnell
03-03-2008, 12:10 PM
I just noticed it probably has something to do with his interview here as well:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/

I am sure he just means that it is not the "magic pill" for weight loss compared to a diet of low carb/higher protein. Not going to argue there. But hard to argue the benefits of IF for the long term. In the end....if IF works for you, stick with it.....if it doesn't then modify or stop doing it. That and IFOC (I need to trademark that) never will do any good.

John Seiler
03-03-2008, 12:52 PM
"Sorry to be the bearer of bad news that the IF didnít live up to its early billing, but thatís the way science sometimes works."

His science doesn't seem particularly rigorous. I read a lot of inferences.

Also, he talks about most people taking in less calories because they are IF'ing. That takes out the binge aspect that was so Paleolithic in his estimation. What about the people who are taking in the same amount of calories. What about the people who did lose quite a bit of weight?

It seems quite a few people here are doing a modified IF with an eating window each day. I'd be interested to see what his experience with that would look like.

Mike ODonnell
03-03-2008, 01:24 PM
The subjects in these studies who consumed only one meal per day had reduced thermogenesis even while consuming the same number of calories that they did when eating three times per day.

Here's the problem with his approach imo. I don't think eating 1x a day of large amount of calories is ever a good idea. Like John said, would be interested how his experience might of been with a modified eating window daily, or even just a fast 1-2x a week. Plus I do not know his or his patient's activity level as people who workout more, obviously burn more calories than those sitting around.

that the intermittent fast is indeed beginning to look like the reality of a late-night gimmicky infomercial: long on promises, short on delivery.
That line is troubling that IF has to be only one way in his book. What about starting with each person, defining their state of health, goals, activity level and adjusting an IF program around those individual needs. What about combining a low carb/higher protein meal plan with a fast 1x a week to improve health markers? (IF meets protein power?) Can't there be more than just one way to IF?

Scott Clark
03-03-2008, 06:33 PM
Can't say I agree with Eades on this one. In my experience with IF (1-2 days per week for now) I've come to the conclusion it's only as good as the quality of food. At first I found myself turning to unfavorable foods just to hit what I thought were baseline calories, which was a total mistake. There was no fat gain or anything but energy levels were nil. Since I've stuck to high quality foods, which happen to be a lot less calories than I was getting during my days of a magic number, I've had all the energy I need. Oddly enough, I fast on the weekends.... when most tend to back off a bit lol.

MOD your blog is outstanding and I've recommended it to many in the past week.

Mike ODonnell
03-03-2008, 06:49 PM
Thanks Scott, just keeping it real (as the kids say) on IF as it does work for so many people and hopefully more and more success stories will get out there. I know Eades didn't like his own approach to IF, but there is more than one way to IF as we know. But all the feedback (even negative) is what makes finding the right ways to IF easier.

I look forward to getting more into mass gain on IF as well as test a few methods myself with carb cycling once my shoulder heals up. (hell may even try a long fast to see if the healing process accelerates....Hmmmm)

Allen Yeh
03-04-2008, 09:43 AM
I wouldn't recommend the eating once for all your calories IF either.

Personally I like the variation I did:

Fast 15-18 hours 5x a week and then don't worry about it on the weekends while still eating well. I found better success with that then with trying to fast 7 days a week. When staying on 7 days a week of 15-18 hour fasting I did find some metabolism slowdown. When I added back in the 2-3 das of not fasting 1-18 that helped to even things out.

Mike ODonnell
03-04-2008, 10:15 AM
I think you are seeing the backlash from all that on Eades' blog as he posted about it and left it open for comments.

Allen - can you do me a favor and post that personal story on IF over at http://projectfit.org/iflifeblog/if-success-stories/ . That's great feedback that people should know about!

Allen Yeh
03-04-2008, 10:48 AM
I think you are seeing the backlash from all that on Eades' blog as he posted about it and left it open for comments.

Allen - can you do me a favor and post that personal story on IF over at http://projectfit.org/iflifeblog/if-success-stories/ . That's great feedback that people should know about!

? what i just posted here?

Mike ODonnell
03-04-2008, 10:53 AM
? what i just posted here?

Yup.

Robb Wolf
03-04-2008, 02:30 PM
I think Loren Cordain has a pretty good grasp on this: Paleo foods, punctuated eating times.

Greg Davis
03-05-2008, 05:35 PM
Robb what is implied by "punctuated eating times"?

Greg Davis
03-26-2008, 04:32 AM
Eades reposted his "IF not all its cracked up to be post" on his own site..

I gave it another quick look over and towards the end this part strikes me as relevant for our purposes, seeing as it seems to be the crux of his newfound counterargument to IF:

IF fasting, by significantly decreasing thermogenesis, decreases kcal out because our thermogenesis is what burns a whole lot of our calories. If the kcal in are decreased by the IF and the kcal out are decreased by the diminished thermogenesis brought about by the IF, itís no wonder the IF doesnít result in a lot of weight loss for most people.

I would never outright dismiss Eades' opinion but I think on this one he's missing the boat.. his clients/customers are looking for weight loss so in that sense YES IF is a bad idea, it slows metabolism. But for athletes or people otherwise not trying to lose weight (ie. many of us want to eat less but preserve LBM) the very effect Eades is criticizing IF for is what we'd be looking for..

It seems to me that MOD's recent blog post on metabolism (http://projectfit.org/iflifeblog/2008/03/24/too-fast-a-metabolism-accelerates-ageing/) is much more representative of why IF works for those who are ready for it.

Paul McKirdy
06-06-2008, 06:01 AM
Human = Animal.

Just like all other animals we are built to be sleeping running fighting f****** or eating. And the lattermost activity is after differently durationed periods of some mix of the former activities. I still haven't figured how we devolved, yes devolved, into cubicle desk-dwellings...

Delusions of grandeur of this reasoning thing in humans is what derails most people. Periods with zero caloric intake are absolutely 100% natural. Even hippo's go long periods without eating, and there's one big perpetually fat nasty thing I would never want to tangle with and for which I have tons, haha, of respect.

My "modified" IF, since learning more and more around these boards, is a now perpetual background meditation process of listening to what my body reports that it needs combined with what I know it needs. Sometimes I have three eggs in the morning sometimes I do not, sometimes I nibble on a few nuts during the day sometimes I do not(I really really want to be precisely as strong as a squirrel some day, those little bastages are quite impressive), always maintain water intake and eat whenever I get around to eating in the evening. Natural "Hunting and Gathering"... I've never been stronger, and body composition of late is changing rapidly since pushing into the even less food levels area from the time period between bedtime to the next days kill er I mean dinner. :cool: I see nothing but continually increasing productivity as I refine food sources and body-listening more and more.

Mike ODonnell
06-06-2008, 08:31 AM
[QUOTE=Paul McKirdy;32250process of listening to what my body reports that it needs combined with what I know it needs.

I see nothing but continually increasing productivity as I refine food sources and body-listening more and more.[/QUOTE]

Well said. Wish more people would take time out to just listen to their body (once they can get rid of all the false signals and cravings from sugar that is).....and fasting I have found just resets our natural cravings....as the body knows what it needs to survive.....and as you said, our human "ego" of needing to be right and know everything, for it to think it knows what the body needs just screws up everything....

Once a person can just listen to their body and know what foods get what results for them....anything is possible.