Eat every 3 hours vs IF for fat loss

Mike ODonnell · 05-16-2007, 06:49 AM

Ok collective nerd herd...let's hear the good evidence....

We have all heard that eating every 3 hours (with protein) stimulates the metabolism....and that IF can lower the metabolism but also spare muscle and burn fat....Sooooo....if you have someone going on a short term diet to lose those last hard to get lbs....which is going to be the more effective approach and why? The old eat every 3 hours (even if it is just protein and veg) has been around for years...and it works.....now the IF is coming to the front, but also looks to slow down the metabolism (which allows you to eat less).

Again this is just for a short term plan (longevity health aside) and assume the person is willing to do either approach....which should it be? Protein meals every 3 hours or IF? Does one spare more muscle while in a hypocaloric state? Does one have greater T3 levels? Does one have an advantage in the GH response?

Robb Wolf · 05-16-2007, 07:09 AM

I think the frequent meals keeps metabolism higher. If one takes in adequate protein and is resistance training I don't think muscle loss will be an issue in either approach. Using the base Zone...possibly stripping out some carbs and replacing them with fat...that is a slam dunk if you can get people to comply.

Jeremy Shepard · 05-16-2007, 09:42 AM

If it's a low-carb approach, I don't see it mattering. If it isn't low-carb, I still don't see it making an appreciable difference unless the person is fairly fatass. I'd set them up on a PSMF style diet, which only allows itself to two good pieces of meat/day. So, two meals whenever.

Elliot Royce · 05-16-2007, 09:55 AM

I find it easier to eat frequently rather than to fast. That may weigh in depending on your trainee's lifestyle, etc. I can see the problems with a business person who travels having to fast and then eat a lot. Ordering large two sirloin steaks at a hotel in Europe can get expensive really quickly.

Garrett Smith · 05-16-2007, 04:34 PM

Why not do frequent meat+veg meals on the 24-hour fast/feed IF? Wouldn't that hit both ends?

"Zone" is definitely the best on 1/2 the carbs and multiple times fat IMO. Not really "Zone", but it works better with the non-starchy carbs in terms of stomach space...

Mike ODonnell · 05-16-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elliot Royce

Ordering large two sirloin steaks at a hotel in Europe can get expensive really quickly.

First of all....if you are not putting it on the company CC...then you need a new job...and secondly....nicely done on the rub.."If I want to have 3 filet mignons at Michael Jordans boat while cruising off the coast of Sicily...well I find it hard to do"...Nice...

I guess the real question was how much is the factor of the metabolic slow down using an IF approach?? If you want weight loss...you want a high metabolism...but then again with the IF approach even though you may slow down your metabolism you are taking in probably less calories....so is the offset even in far of calorie deficit for fat loss....or does one hold a distinct advantage. Again assuming you have a client that can do either approach and consistency and conformity is not an issue....

Steve Liberati · 05-16-2007, 05:43 PM

My first thought was to combine the two as Garrett suggested...IF 2-3 days a week with feed days involving eating every 2.5-3 hrs. But before making that suggestion, more info about the client is needed. Specifically:
1.) What training protocol/program is s/he following?
2.) Is this person a fat or sugar burner?
3.) Body type and bf % ??

To answer your question whether one spares muscle in a hypocaloric state...just take a look at your typical "natural" bobdybuilder prepping for a show. A true natural usually comes in ripped with exceedly low bodyfat packed with slabs of muscle mass. Although bb'ers are not the ideal model to follow when it comes to training (isolated vs compound, mult-joint functional movements) and health...they know what they're doing when it comes to diet. Okay, not entirely...but enough we can learn and borrow some of their techniques if altering one's body shape is the main goal.

Conversely...
...anything "short-term" yields short-term reults. Nothing you don't already know Mike...but worth pointing out so it can be addressed and adjusted accordingly.

Elliot Royce · 05-17-2007, 06:41 AM

Mike:

Be careful what you wish for....you'd probably initially turn green if I told you the places I get to visit....and then you'd start to realize that it involves being away from family, getting jet lagged, not being able to exercise consistently, and generally often attending long, somewhat boring meetings. Personally, I sometimes envy those of you with steady schedules!

Robb Wolf · 05-17-2007, 08:05 AM

MOD-
The slow-down is just the waste heat frittered away from overeating...I don't see that as being much if any contributor to the fat loss story...have to think about that.

Pierre Auge · 05-17-2007, 08:48 AM

Well consider this, three weeks ago I was 150lbs. I am currently around 146lbs and noticeably leaner. I Fast from 1 hour before bed 9:00pm (21:00hrs) usually to 3:00pm (15:00hrs) - 18 hours on average. I then consume between the hours of 15:00 - 21:00 18 zone blocks. If I workout more than once I'll eat ~20 blocks. 3x fat and I'm weighing and measuring.

Little guy - lots of food, lots of free time during the day when not eating I find myself to be very productive and I really like eating and this seems to be the best protocol I've tried, but I'm only a couple of weeks into it.

Fat loss seems to be accelerated in this manner. Also keep in mind I'm kind of lazy and don't really workout that hard so my activity level doesn't really warrant 18-20 blocks.