Catalyst Athletics Forums

Catalyst Athletics Forums (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Nutrition (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Intermittent Fasting: New Diet Solution or Passing Fad? (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3151)

Allen Yeh 10-08-2008 05:04 AM

Intermittent Fasting: New Diet Solution or Passing Fad?
 
http://ericcressey.blogspot.com/2008...-solution.html

George Mounce 10-08-2008 05:37 AM

Quote:

IF followers will choose a day or two each week, and on those days, they simply won’t eat for 24 hours. It seems simple, and a lot of people like the idea of giving your body and digestive system a break.
Not true. I do 2-3 12-17 hour fasts a week, sometimes I don't fast at all. I don't like how almost right away its plugged on the articles author's definition of IF.
Quote:

Here arises the problem. In the animal studies with rats, researches observed signs of depression and irritability.
Seriously, how does one define an irritable rat?

Quote:

Research started showing that people following IF, or even purposefully skipping a few meals per day were developing insulin resistance, decreased glucose tolerance, and increased blood pressure.
Love to see the research on this, in fact everyone I know who IF's has had exactly the opposite effect. Of course the people in those studies probably were eating a typical American diet, which doesn't get mentioned here.

Quote:

In most real world applications - especially because people were eating diets in a significant caloric deficit - the body downregulated its thermogenesis to such an immense degree as to not allow for almost any weight loss.
This is about the only part I agree with, I have noticed this effect in myself, after awhile I couldn't lose anymore weight because my body had adjusted. So what did I do? Change up fast times or don't fast for awhile. Simple as that.

So overall, one guy's opinion, backed up with no sources. I'll stick to MODs blog.

Allen Yeh 10-08-2008 05:54 AM

Just putting it up there, typically I like a lot of the stuff that Eric Cressey puts out.

Mike ODonnell 10-08-2008 06:33 AM

Ok....time to rant a bit....

Quote:

After these initial animal studies, human researches jumped on the IF bandwagon. People were expecting big things. Unfortunately, they were very disappointed with the results. Research started showing that people following IF, or even purposefully skipping a few meals per day were developing insulin resistance, decreased glucose tolerance, and increased blood pressure. These problems were not tremendous problems and some might argue that in real world IF, where people don’t fast every other day (only once or twice a week), the studied health problems wouldn’t occur.
It's the same old Mattson study about 1-3 meals a day that gets dragged around.....been rehashed enough. Moral of the story, 1 big carb bomb meal a day will not get weight loss or improve insulin sensitivity. Smaller insulin controlled meals always a better idea (except if you are doing an infrequent carb load after a workout)

Quote:

Even if this is so, there is another problem with which we have to contend. The largest problem is a decrease in thermogenesis. Essentially saying that these people, even though they purposefully consumed as many total calories on IF as the control group, had drastically suppressed their metabolisms. This is why so many people have found such little real world fat loss from IF. In most real world applications - especially because people were eating diets in a significant caloric deficit - the body downregulated its thermogenesis to such an immense degree as to not allow for almost any weight loss. This to me is the final blow.
To me this is people who are too sold on BB mantra to think the body can actually operate a different way. There is no proof IF (when done correctly) lowers metabolism (in fact it may increase metabolism due to increased SNS response). IF is not starvation or CR. Also to think a faster metabolism is the only way to burn fat is pure silliness. As if a person who burns 4000 cal a day and eats 3500 has a -500 cal a day deficit....now a person who burns 3000 cal a day and eats 2500 has a -500 cal a day deficit. Hmmmmm......looks pretty similar. Add in the fact that fat loss is hormonal and IF has dramatically shown lower insulin levels and increased GH output....well looks like a pretty good fat loss environment, add in some good intensity training and an active lifestyle, and fat will fall off.

I like Eric's stuff usually but have to give a thumbs down on this one. Eric (technically Eric didn't even write it so can't fault him...although it's his blog) is new to the IF game and just rehashing what most people first think about IF when they first hear about it (starvation...Ahhhhhhhhh)......but I'm sick of everyone pulling up the one study as proof IF doesn't work when you only eat one big carb meal a day (which they usually neglect to share in their IF bashing). Really? Shocker.

I expect nothing less from most people though....as it threatens everything they ever knew about fat loss and health and would mean that all their advice in the past could of been......wrong? Hey even I bought into the 6x a day meal thing in the past.....but I already went to consuling and got over it. I'll be the first to admit that you can lose weight eating 6x a day....10x a day....or 3x a day. It's still all about insulin control and calorie deficit. That and IF is a threat to the hundreds of millions of dollars in the whole bar/shake/meal replacement industry. Imagine the horrors if people could lose weight just on real food!

Rant done.....I've already gone over this in more detail in the past when Eades came out with the same post about IF not working (mainly because he used it as a pass to pig out on carbs once a day). Now IF + lower or controlled carb is a different story. I went into more in the comments here about that study if anyone really wants to rehash this more: http://www.theiflife.com/2008/03/03/...-ferris-on-if/

George Mounce 10-08-2008 07:44 AM

I have to agree with you MOD, IF when used with crappy foods, yields crappy results.

Brian Lau 10-08-2008 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike ODonnell (Post 40455)
IF has dramatically shown lower insulin levels and increased GH output....

MOD, could you point me to the evidence that IF increases GH output. Thanks!

Mike ODonnell 10-08-2008 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Lau (Post 40473)
MOD, could you point me to the evidence that IF increases GH output. Thanks!

Surely:

Augmented growth hormone (GH) secretory burst frequency and amplitude mediate enhanced GH secretion during a two-day fast in normal men.

Pulsatile growth hormone secretion in older persons is enhanced by fasting without relationship to sleep stages.

Remember that GH is a hormone that comes in "pulses" (greatest being while during sleep). Fasting pulses seem to be on average higher than non-fasting (as the body's way of saving muscle and burning fat?).

Of course for optimal results one also has to focus on insulin control....as high insulin environments (resistance) while IF'n will lead to long term muscle loss and fat gain.

Mike ODonnell 10-08-2008 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Mounce (Post 40468)
I have to agree with you MOD, IF when used with crappy foods, yields crappy results.

IFOC ("IF on Crap"....patent pending) never works.....but there are ways to cycle in non-paleo foods if you got your exercise days and eating fat+meat days as well. But IF as a license to pig out on junk food or eat anything you want....won't work (which is basically what those human trials were).

Dave Van Skike 10-08-2008 12:18 PM

The practice of calling it IF migth be a fad but really it's not far off of what a lot of people have arrived at over time as a normal eating pattern. for a lot of people, my grandparents included.

wake up : coffee,
eat nothing until about 4PM,
have some fruit,
contineu working,
go home about 6.
eat big meal, (last night was roast beef, sweet potatoes, carrots, and greens) , drink a glass or two of of red wine or guinness.
eat light snack before bed......

repeat.

Eat like this with crappy foods, i.e. big starch bomb and inadequate protein/goodfat you'll feel like hot trash and likely quit or become a binge eater.

Use the reduced meal frequency to plan, prepare and enjoy good foods, you'll start to look like someone who works for a living.

Fallacy #1. is assuming IF is magic,
Fallacy #2 is using a bunch of studies to justify the position one way or the other.

Anyone I know who has given it a solid try in the real world has at least seen some positives. Whether it wins everyone's cost benefit analysis is different quesition will not likley be answered by Mr. Cressey.

Mike ODonnell 10-08-2008 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike (Post 40493)
The practice of calling it IF migth be a fad but really it's not far off of what a lot of people have arrived at over time as a normal eating pattern. for a lot of people, my grandparents included.

That we can agree on.....IF is just a fancy name for doing what feels right. Although in today's world you basically have to tell most people how to eat because they have lost all natural senses of what normal eating is supposed to be. Not much to hunt and gather while sitting at a cubicle...unless you call the machine in the lunch room "prey".

Tons of ways to go about IF.....many work....many do not....individual needs vary also.....too many variables to group just all under 2 little letters (IF).

The fad will come and go for those looking for quick and easy answers while binge eating on sugar.....it will stick around for those of us who call it a lifestyle.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.