Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Nutrition > General Nutrition

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-15-2007, 09:21 AM   #1
Neill Smith
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Default Occasional IF and Rest Days

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?
Neill Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 11:07 AM   #2
Greg Battaglia
Senior Member
 
Greg Battaglia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 269
Default

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.
__________________
There are dreams we’re taught are normal, whether it’s money or success or any of those things, but we shouldn’t believe in those things if they are not important to us. There is an ocean between our real lives and what is expected of us.” -Tim Lambesis
Greg Battaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 07:39 PM   #3
Neill Smith
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Default

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 Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2007, 07:32 AM   #4
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neill Occhiogrosso View Post
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.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2007, 05:56 PM   #5
Greg Battaglia
Senior Member
 
Greg Battaglia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 269
Default

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.
__________________
There are dreams we’re taught are normal, whether it’s money or success or any of those things, but we shouldn’t believe in those things if they are not important to us. There is an ocean between our real lives and what is expected of us.” -Tim Lambesis
Greg Battaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2007, 06:35 PM   #6
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

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.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 07:21 AM   #7
Neill Smith
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Default

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.
Neill Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 03:36 PM   #8
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neill Occhiogrosso View Post
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.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 03:59 PM   #9
Steve Liberati
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 459
Default

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.
__________________
100,000 generations of humans have been hunters and gatherers; 500 generations have been agriculturalists; ten have lived in the industrial age; and only one has been exposed to the world of computers.

Steve's Club
Crossfit Tribe
Steve Liberati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 04:45 PM   #10
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Liberati View Post
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.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator