Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
You're right, I don't know a lot about IF, but from what I understood, it should be done every day. If that's not true than I stand corrected.
Not true. IF can take many forms and it doesn't have to be every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiFeIsGoOd
It if is true, than as far as doing it for a purpose other than convenience, yes it would be pointless. It's great because it works for your schedule, but if for instance, you were focused on fat loss, one would think that you need to stick to something for that to have any benefit beyond eating "normally"
Did you read Lisa's comment? Just because it's not every day doesn't mean she's not sticking to a plan. Her Tuesday/Thursday system can probably cut 15% of her weekly calories. If her activity levels stay the same, she knows what type of weight loss to expect. And if she strength trains, she knows the weight loss will be primarily fat loss.
Do you lift every single day? If not, does that make it pointless?
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
I hear you. I said if it's not supposed to be every day than I stand corrected. The inconsistency just doesn't seem to make sense, but I'll have to read more about it sometime.
It's still calories in vs. calories out over an extended period of time. If you do IF 3x a week it's calories in vs calories out over an extended period of time. If you do it 4x a week or not at all it's still calories in vs calories out over an extended period of time.
It's still calories in vs. calories out over an extended period of time. If you do IF 3x a week it's calories in vs calories out over an extended period of time. If you do it 4x a week or not at all it's still calories in vs calories out over an extended period of time.
Yeah I realize that. That's where my "normal" diet comment came in. If you're doing it randomly like that, it seems like that's all it is. Calories in vs. calories out. That is no different than any other diet in that respect. However, the link did make it seem like IF would be beneficial and have differences to non-fasting diets.
Although I have no clue who Mark Sisson is or why I (or you guys) should listen to him. I realize he was an endurance athlete, but all it says in his bio is that he researched nutrition, which makes him no different than anyone on here. Not to mention that Primal Nutrition stuff he's selling seems like a colossal waste of money. Anyone care to elaborate on that?
I gotcha. As a rule I don't know how much of Lost Dog's world is truly "random" and I was shooting more from personal knowledge of him than what he posted.
Most of the whole diet and exercise world can be accomplished by establishing a few parameters and if you can accomplish the basics of what is important in that window the rest can be "random". Which is what I think he rolls with. He'll do the IF (pulling a number out of my butt) 4 days a week and eat normally 3 of them. The goal being to have a reduced calorie intake for the week. The method being to limit the number of meals\calories 4 days a week.
There's no "reason" to do it like he does it other than it's convenient and works for him.
I gotcha. As a rule I don't know how much of Lost Dog's world is truly "random" and I was shooting more from personal knowledge of him than what he posted.
Most of the whole diet and exercise world can be accomplished by establishing a few parameters and if you can accomplish the basics of what is important in that window the rest can be "random". Which is what I think he rolls with. He'll do the IF (pulling a number out of my butt) 4 days a week and eat normally 3 of them. The goal being to have a reduced calorie intake for the week. The method being to limit the number of meals\calories 4 days a week.
There's no "reason" to do it like he does it other than it's convenient and works for him.
Understood. In terms of weight loss, that would of course work. I just don't see the point of that in terms of IF. I guess I'll have to find out more about it, but I feel like that's just saying, "Okay well I'll do Keto on Wed and Fri, or whenever I feel like it." That would be completely pointless as far as Keto goes, but again, in terms of weight loss, sure it could still work. See what I mean?
I gotcha. As a rule I don't know how much of Lost Dog's world is truly "random" and I was shooting more from personal knowledge of him than what he posted.
Most of the whole diet and exercise world can be accomplished by establishing a few parameters and if you can accomplish the basics of what is important in that window the rest can be "random". Which is what I think he rolls with. He'll do the IF (pulling a number out of my butt) 4 days a week and eat normally 3 of them. The goal being to have a reduced calorie intake for the week. The method being to limit the number of meals\calories 4 days a week.
There's no "reason" to do it like he does it other than it's convenient and works for him.
pretty on spot on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiFeIsGoOd
Understood. In terms of weight loss, that would of course work. I just don't see the point of that in terms of IF.
Maybe you think intermittent fasting is more than it is, then. It's just going periods of time without eating. Usually, for weight loss (or maintaining). For me, IF is a way to easily eat fewer calories.
Quote:
I guess I'll have to find out more about it, but I feel like that's just saying, "Okay well I'll do Keto on Wed and Fri, or whenever I feel like it." That would be completely pointless as far as Keto goes, but again, in terms of weight loss, sure it could still work. See what I mean?
Your keto example isn't good because you can't get into ketosis in one day. Someone on a ketogenic diet can still intermittently fast, though.
Understood. In terms of weight loss, that would of course work. I just don't see the point of that in terms of IF. I guess I'll have to find out more about it, but I feel like that's just saying, "Okay well I'll do Keto on Wed and Fri, or whenever I feel like it." That would be completely pointless as far as Keto goes, but again, in terms of weight loss, sure it could still work. See what I mean?
You don't see the point to it as it relates to IF because one doesn't exist. The IF isn't magical, it's a method to control calories...that's it. (In our example of Lost Dog) It's no different than saying that you're not going to have desert 4 days a week, even though you've eaten desert every day since you were two. You reduced calorie intake 4x a week. You can cut out carbs\fat X days a week. To really rock your world you can set up some sort of exercise program where you physically move 3+ days a week (creating a calorie deficit).
You're right on track. None of the methods are really relevant, they're just ways to accomplish the same goal. Some people like to toss in some sort of "you have to do this or it won't work" thing, but they're full of shit.
On the ketosis days on\days off. Check out some of the carb cycling diets. There's actually a point to doing it. Has nothing to do with ketosis, but it's fun anyway.
Your keto example isn't good because you can't get into ketosis in one day. Someone on a ketogenic diet can still intermittently fast, though.
I know, and that's actually exactly why I used that example, to prove the point.
I guess I was thinking more into it, and I'm clear on it now. I didn't realize that it was just really a way to control caloric intake. Most specific diets are designed to (or at least SHOULD be designed to) have a specific effect, keto or carb cycling for example. But I guess that isn't the case here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbla
You don't see the point to it as it relates to IF because one doesn't exist. The IF isn't magical, it's a method to control calories...that's it. (In our example of Lost Dog) It's no different than saying that you're not going to have desert 4 days a week, even though you've eaten desert every day since you were two. You reduced calorie intake 4x a week. You can cut out carbs\fat X days a week. To really rock your world you can set up some sort of exercise program where you physically move 3+ days a week (creating a calorie deficit).
You're right on track. None of the methods are really relevant, they're just ways to accomplish the same goal. Some people like to toss in some sort of "you have to do this or it won't work" thing, but they're full of shit.
On the ketosis days on\days off. Check out some of the carb cycling diets. There's actually a point to doing it. Has nothing to do with ketosis, but it's fun anyway.
Yeah I hear you. Thanks for that. I'm totally with you on the "you have to do this or it won't work" thing. I know that's crap and I don't get how people still believe that. I guess it's normal when you're first starting out. I've looked into carb cycling, and I intend to try it eventually, just not yet.
I'm reading through the thread now. It's amazing how peoples preconcieved notions don't like to be presented with ideas that contradict them. Oh, how they fight!
Well, we cant blame them, thats their point of view about it. =)
Alan Aragon posted a podcast interview in another thread that addresses all the points made in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaddukes
I'm reading through the thread now. It's amazing how peoples preconcieved notions don't like to be presented with ideas that contradict them. Oh, how they fight!
Chad, I really do understand how folks can fight a certain point of view. If a persons first successful stint at correcting excessive fat accumulation is the 5 to 6 meals per day, stoke the fire sort of approach; then someone comes along and tells them it doesn't make any difference, it's usually met with skepticism. For the longest time, I was convinced that food quality and meal frequency had more to do with fat loss than calories in vs. calories out. That might have been a really naive point of view, but given my success using that approach; I had a reason to believe in it's validity. I've since been convinced that I was lucky in that the approach caused me to eat less calories than I burned. I now count every single calorie that I consume. It's easy to maintain 17% to 20% BF by using the 5 small meals approach. However, I've found that getting under 15% BF is very difficult without weighing portions and counting every calorie in the food that is consumed. So count me into one of those skeptics that has since been reformed.
Hey Alan....love the new avi and as a new subscriber to AARR, I must tell you how impressed I am! I feel like I am in school with my binder full of AARR's.....reading and highlighting!
Hey Alan....love the new avi and as a new subscriber to AARR, I must tell you how impressed I am! I feel like I am in school with my binder full of AARR's.....reading and highlighting!
Thanks Jane, it's great to know you're carrying me around with you
But seriously, I'm glad you're enjoying it & learning from it. I really get a kick out of scouring the literature. And of course, it's fun using the literature to dig at ludicrous claims.
About my avi, it gets mixed reviews. Some folks think I look uncharacteristically pissed off. My guess is that you listen to heavy metal if you like my avi.
Are you still "swayed towards the arguments that more frequent is better"?
There's been plenty of good input presented by the good folks of this forum, so I hope your questions have been answered.
No, not at all. Well, I think that depends on the person. Physiologically, no I'm not. If it helps someone to eat less and/or maintain their goals, then sure it's better, but I don't think it goes further than that. The converse approach, eating less often (such as IF), could help someone in the same way it makes it harder for another. So in that sense it goes both ways. I don't think there is much difference as far as body composition.
My comment was just on the fact that IF is most used as a daily regimen, as far as I know, anyway. I really need to get a good book on that. The only one I've seen is Eat Stop Eat. Is that a good option? Any others?
Thanks Jane, it's great to know you're carrying me around with you
But seriously, I'm glad you're enjoying it & learning from it. I really get a kick out of scouring the literature. And of course, it's fun using the literature to dig at ludicrous claims.
About my avi, it gets mixed reviews. Some folks think I look uncharacteristically pissed off. My guess is that you listen to heavy metal if you like my avi.
Too bad I didn't see this thread earlier, some great discussion on a topic I find very interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiFeIsGoOd
You're right, I don't know a lot about IF, but from what I understood, it should be done every day. If that's not true than I stand corrected.
IF, or not IF, if you ingested the same amount of calories, and the same food on two different days, one day using IF, and the other eating "normally", there would be zero difference to your body.
You could do IF every second week if you wanted to, IF is just a certain way of scheduling your meals, the idea behind it that meal frequency really doesn't matter all that much!
I personally eat 2 meals a day most days, e.g. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays I will usually eat my first meal at 4pm, then i will train from 7-9pm, and eat my second meal between 10pm and midnight. On Saturdays and Sundays I will train from roughly 11am-1pm, and eat whenever I finish traiing(1-3pm), and i will have my second meal at around 8-9pm.
I occasionally snack, but not very often, right now I seriously have like 50 bucks worth of fruit, I'll have to be snacking on fruit all day for the next week or so, yummy! Some days i will eat 3, or even 4 meals, it all depends, ie. if somebody offers me free food at any time of the day, I will eat it
I'm currently gaining weight slowly, but have used this same approach when rapidly dropping weight. I've been eating like this most of the time for the last two years, getting alot stronger, gaining muscle mass, and getting leaner too.
Linear Mode
