Occasional IF and Rest Days

[Neill Smith]

I'm doing two IF days per week, and the current CA WOD schedule (Sunday and Thursday are rest days). Should IF days come before, on, or after rest days?

[Greg Battaglia]

IF should come before rest days. On rest days you should try to rake in the calories. How long are you IFing and on what days? I would try to IF on any of the 2 days that are not rest days. Use the positive physiological effects of IF to improve your workouts. They go together. Likewise, while your resting it makes sense to eat lots of food to help rebuild.

[Neill Smith]

Thanks Greg, that makes sense. I'm planning on eighteen hour fasts. I can go longer, but I have a lot of trouble going a whole day--I find it impossible to sleep hungry.

[Stuart Mather]

Originally Posted by Neill Occhiogrosso

Thanks Greg, that makes sense. I'm planning on eighteen hour fasts. I can go longer, but I have a lot of trouble going a whole day--I find it impossible to sleep hungry.

Neill, I did 24/24 IF for few months earlier this year, and I ate dinner every day:

day1: fast from 7.00pm to 7.00 pm the following day after eating dinner at 6pm.

day2: Eat dinner at 7.00 and regular meals the following day until dinner at 6.00pm.

Repeat the above.

Why do you think you need to go without dinner if your fast is longer than 18 hrs ?.

Stuart.

[Greg Battaglia]

I would go with what Stuart says, but if you feel as though you can't go that long than DO NOT force your body. It will do more harm than good. Listen to your body.

[Stuart Mather]

I should add that I'm not actually recommending 24/24 to anyone. I never found it that comfortable to do, even after three months. The eat days always seemed to turn into an unseemly pig out(still low carb, just lots of it). But I was very accustomed to the 24 hr fast mind you. I far prefer 18 hrs every day with 20 hrs every third day. On this approach I've noticed the most remarkable drop in ad lib low carb calorie level with no loss in either performance or body comp. IF done this way really does seem to increase the efficiency of food utilization. And for some people 24/24 may well too. With me, it didn't.

I'm not sure the increase in food utilization efficiency has squat to do with metabolic rate change though. More like just a much cleaner burn.

My previous post was simply to point out that by timing the fast/ eat transition appropriately, it is no problem to do 24/24 and still always eat dinner.

Stuart.

[Neill Smith]

Stuart:
I was referring to fasting between sleep cycles, not for a 24-hour period. I should have defined "a whole day".

My experience with three separate attempts at IF has been precipitous weight loss in all cases. Robb and I discussed this at the clinic two weeks ago, and he recommended trying it two days per week instead.

[Stuart Mather]

Originally Posted by Neill Occhiogrosso

Stuart:
I was referring to fasting between sleep cycles, not for a 24-hour period. I should have defined "a whole day".

My experience with three separate attempts at IF has been precipitous weight loss in all cases. Robb and I discussed this at the clinic two weeks ago, and he recommended trying it two days per week instead.

Fair enough Neill, although that would be at least a 32 hr fast (assuming sleep time of 8hrs) - which is a long time for a body to go without energy intake after a lifetime of much more regular meals.

Also, I take it that the 'precipitous weight loss' included LBM as well as bodyfat?.
And given my earlier comments about how long term IF seems to increase the efficiency of food utilization, I'm wondering why you (or Robb) think less frequent longer fasts, rather than daily fasts of only incremental extension of your customary overnight fast is the optimum way to realize the considerable health and body comp benefits IF confers.

In other words, precipitously embarking on much longer overnight fasts, however infrequently, seems like a sure way to stress your metabolism. Some individuals more than others of course. Many people seem able to move into daily at least 15 hr fasts with only benefits. Your experience with such a sudden transition into a much longer fast seems to indicate that you and I are both definitely in the 'gradual is far better' camp.

Whatever the overnight fast length you have been getting for most of your life - be it 8 hrs or 12, why don't you just extend that by half an hour a week/ fortnight? and see what happens, rather than just stressing it less often?

Stuart.

[Steve Liberati]

Stuart: you sound way to smart for me...but I think the reason behind the less frequent fasts is so he can have more feed days to keep his bodyweight up and not lose weight as been the case with the other approaches. Unless I read it wrong too.

[Stuart Mather]

Originally Posted by Steve Liberati

Stuart: you sound way to smart for me...but I think the reason behind the less frequent fasts is so he can have more feed days to keep his bodyweight up and not lose weight as been the case with the other approaches. Unless I read it wrong too.

Steve, I was speculating that 'the other approaches' of precipitously longer fasts, were inevitably resulting in Neill's undesired weight loss due to the (relative to after long term IF) inefficient use of food. I'm just wondering why less regular longer fasts rather than daily shorter (but gradually lengthening) fasts are considered a better way to gradually realize the substrate utilization efficiency benefits of long term IF, as well as all the other health/bodycomp benefits? You talk about 'feed day's as if having a longer (than customary) overnight fast somehow makes it not a feed day. I mean I IF every day, and every day is a feed day too. Ramping up the daily (or of whatever frequency) fast length gradually has in my experience been the better approach than just using fewer fasting days to consume more food to 'cover' for the fasting days. I eat way less food now than I did when I started extending my overnight fast. And yet I continue to gradually gain muscle and lose bodyfat, with no change in exercise. But it's taken a year to gradually ramp up the fast length.

My concern with less frequent longer fasts is that this improved substrate utilization efficiency will never be realized. A concern that stems from my own experience of 24/24 IF'ing.

Btw. were you suggesting that I'm being a smartass, or just over analytical ?

Stuart.