Eat every 3 hours vs IF for recovery

[-Ross Hunt]

Originally Posted by Craig Cooper

True, but everything happens in nature for a reason. You can theorize why that is, test it, and hopefully gain some insight.

This is definitely true. I was just pointing out that there's a big gap between 'everything happens in nature for a reason' and 'nature does nothing in vain.'

[Robb Wolf]

The literature shows great benefit with regards to healing and both caloric restriction and intermittent fasting:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...al-injury.html

Decrease inflammation, enhanced insulin sensitivity and modulated immune function are all good for healing.

Kurtis Bowler ruptured his achilles tendon training for strong man and continued to IF. I believe his recovery was "surprisingly fast" according to his doc.

[Stuart Mather]

Originally Posted by -Ross Hunt

I don't intend to bad-mouth IF; for all I know it may very well accelerate healing. But the fact that animals fast when they are injured is not a persuasive argument. It is wrong for the same reason the unsophisticated version of the argument for the Paleo Diet is wrong: Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's the best. Animals probably fast when they're injured for the same reason that muscles spasm unnecessarily around slightly injured joints--to increase the animal's chance of survival by discouraging motion that could aggravate the injury or jeaprodize the animal's life.

Except that animals don't only fast when they're injured. They also fast when ill. I certainly agree with you that everything that is natural is not necessarily the best. However the converse is equally ridiculous. Just an even cursory look at the biochemistry of fasting would seem to indicate that fasting in response to either injury or illness is for beneficial regenerative reasons, not merely mechanical.

Stuart.

[Rene Renteria]

blah blah blah hormesis! blah blah blah

(sorry, I got nuthin')

[Robb Wolf]

Originally Posted by Rene Renteria

blah blah blah hormesis! blah blah blah

(sorry, I got nuthin')

LOL! thanks!

[Troy Archie]

This topic has been on the back of my mind lately. In Lon Kilgore's "Physics, Physiology, and Food" in this months CFJ, he brought up an interesting point in regards to the eat every 3 hours principle:

"Insulin stimulates the transport of that newly digested carbohydrate, now in the form of blood sugar, to be moved out of the blood into the various tissues of the body. The inevitable result of insulin action, a reduction in blood sugar, stimulates hunger, which is a response to depressions in blood sugar. You get hungry more frequently on a low-fat diet. That tiny little problem usually dooms low-fat diets to failure and abandonment in a matter of weeks. For a chance at success with a low-fat diet, not only do you need to change the foods you eat, you also need to change how you eat. Instead of three squares a day, it is much more effective to eat four or five smaller meals with little snacks between. Spreading the food relatively uniformly across the waking day helps minimize the time between insulin concentration troughs, thereby helping limit between-meal hunger pangs."

If that's the main reasoning behind the 4-6 small meals per day ideology then does it fit into a low-carb/high fat principle too? I'm thinking no.

[Ron Nelson]

I think that's a good question and you're probably right about the answer. I'm no nutritionist, but my sneaking suspicion is the caloric intake would be way too high as low carb/high fat foods tend to have a higher caloric density.

It's probably why I couldn't make any headway on a low carb, six meal diet and seem to have lost inches, but not strength, using IF.

[THOMAS RICHARDS]

Just want to make some of my observations about If, can't really say about the six meals
-weight loss down from 242-222lbs as of 6 am this morning (4wks in}
-% percentage body fat loss down from about 30% to a measured 21% (you know the pool testing)
- I am less gassed after the wod @ crossfitnc 3-4 days a week times are going down
- strength numbers are still maintained with a deadlift and back squat of still over 400 lbs
-

I think so far this has been the easiest lifestyle change I could have made, some people think I am crazy but the pounds and fat are dropping, I am still
doing better in the gym, don't think I am anywhere near my potential performance lab told me at 190lbs I would be at 10% bf if I didn't lose any lean muscle can't wait to get there, and the fact you can cheat a little and start over the next day makes everything great, the weekends are a welcomed sight!

I thought the guy who told me about IF was a f**cking nut, until I tried it
another lesson learned! Now in my families eyes I am the nut!

[Robb Wolf]

Troy-
That scenario you describe is the classic "hypoglycemic's" situation...they need a constant titration of food to make it. They are sufficiently insulin resistant such that they can not access body fat for energy and MUST have a near constant glucose infusion.

I think it's hard as hell to eat every 3 hrs on low carb. This is part of the reason a moderate-high carb diet is likely better for gaining muscle at some point as you are actually hungry. Low carb means little or no hunger.

[Mike ODonnell]

Originally Posted by Robb Wolf

Low carb means little or no hunger.

Mongo crave meat.......Fire bad......