|
I'm thinking of giving this a shot. I've been doing Low-Carb since May, and my results are somewhat stalling/I want to change up my routine. My question is can this work If I have an inconsistent work schedule? For example, can my eating/workout window vary day to day like, M: 12:00-5:00 T: 4:00pm-9:00 W: 2:00-7:00, Th: 2:00-7:00 F: 7:00pm-12:00am, etc? Or should I not try this at all if I can't keep a regular schedule due to work?
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 16:57 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 01:51 |
|
|
webcams for christ posted:I'm thinking of giving this a shot. I've been doing Low-Carb since May, and my results are somewhat stalling/I want to change up my routine. I think this would work out fine, you might have a slightly tougher time not being as hungry because of the moving eating window. But you can skew when you eat on each of those days so you're always starting to eat between like 4 or 5pm, +/- 2-3 hours. As long as you hit your macro and calorie ratios, I see no reason why it wouldn't work.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 22:20 |
|
|
So I've been on Warrior Diet for more than half a year now, and I started noticing that I'm really loving cold throughout the day, especially as I go further into my fasting period. I'm guessing it's the mix of adrenalin and lowered metabolism, is anybody else experiencing this?
|
| # ? Mar 11, 2011 01:20 |
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:So I've been on Warrior Diet for more than half a year now, and I started noticing that I'm really loving cold throughout the day, especially as I go further into my fasting period. I'm guessing it's the mix of adrenalin and lowered metabolism, is anybody else experiencing this? I definitely notice this... I'm trying to ignore it until summer :\
|
| # ? Mar 11, 2011 01:45 |
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:So I've been on Warrior Diet for more than half a year now, and I started noticing that I'm really loving cold throughout the day, especially as I go further into my fasting period. I'm guessing it's the mix of adrenalin and lowered metabolism, is anybody else experiencing this? I have been loving freezing but I chock it up to winter + losing a bunch of weight. I think I have been colder in the fasting period though. Interesting thought.
|
| # ? Mar 11, 2011 01:46 |
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:So I've been on Warrior Diet for more than half a year now, and I started noticing that I'm really loving cold throughout the day, especially as I go further into my fasting period. I'm guessing it's the mix of adrenalin and lowered metabolism, is anybody else experiencing this? http://www.leangains.com/2010_09_01_archive.html quote:Q: "Sometimes when I fast my finger tips get cold, why is that? Happens to me all the time- doesn't bother me nearly as much any more.
|
| # ? Mar 11, 2011 01:55 |
|
|
What do you guys usually eat before workouts on a 20/4 diet? I know that Ori suggests that workouts are to be done in fasted state, but in my experience if you're lifting serious weights and trying to push your limits with each workout, progress will either stop or revert. I heard the suggestion of having some quick energy from something like fruits beforehand, but then there are folks who believe that you don't want to play with your glycogen buffer just yet and should put carbs off as much as possible until the feast. Any suggestions?
|
| # ? Mar 18, 2011 02:06 |
|
|
I have no pics or proof or anything, but I've been doing eat stop eat since November. Down a solid >20lbs so far, no strength loss (and I believe solid muscle gain). Just got back from the store buying my 2nd round of replacement jeans since my originals and first replacements simply don't fit anymore. I recommend this diet to anyone who asks what I've been doing, but it's not easy to get into - the first few fasts loving suck. But after 5 months, aside from hunger pangs when the smell of somebody else's lunch wafts through the office, it's pretty easy. More often than not now even though I know exactly when 24hours is up, it just won't occur to me to eat until a few hours later. I'd have to say that's the worst part right now, I'll plan to meet people for a meal exactly after the 24hours - we sit down, and I'm just not hungry. Anyone on the fence, just loving try it. I regret not taking 'before' pics, but I had zero faith that I could actually stick to it for any length of time.
|
| # ? Mar 18, 2011 04:50 |
|
|
I've been following Martin Gherkan's protocol for IFing for about one and a half months without any noticeable change in my bodyweight aside from a few extra pounds of muscle. On top of that, it seems like I'm in a lot more pain from general soreness after a long/heavy workout than I used to be. Strange that I've gained at all, considering I'm almost always eating about 20% below what I think my mait is.
|
| # ? Mar 18, 2011 05:33 |
|
|
Been doing this with about 16-22 hours each day of fasting with Saturdays off, combined with a good deal of strength work and cardio every day of the week. I've gotten rid of about 5.5 kgs of fat this year so far, taking a break now since I feel sore and tired. It really helped me get through a nasty plateau. 
|
| # ? Mar 18, 2011 21:55 |
|
|
So, I've fallen off the wagon a little bit. Staying low on carbs kept me in great shape for about a year and a half, but a change in work environment and gym availability gave me some issues. I've decided to try intermittent fasting for getting back into shape primarily so that I don't have to sacrifice social life for dietary reasons. I'm a week in right now, and my weight is fluctuating quite a bit more on a day to day basis than it ever did with strictly low carb dieting, which is interesting. I think it has to do with the constant changing in muscle glycose. I am gaining and dropping water weight in cycles that somehow revolve around my workout schedule versus meals. Starting weight was 182, weight today is 176. This diet seems to work really well for me in regards to hunger and satiation. I can live without a big meal in the morning. Making it up with a post-workout "feast" of sorts is very worth it. Plan on lifting 4-5 days a week. I do better at sticking to it if I do it more days per week. I'm shooting for 18/6 for my fasting periods, but not kicking myself if I end up closer to 16/8. Mr. Belding fucked around with this message at Mar 22, 2011 around 17:11 |
| # ? Mar 22, 2011 17:09 |
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:So, I've fallen off the wagon a little bit. Staying low on carbs kept me in great shape for about a year and a half, but a change in work environment and gym availability gave me some issues. Weight fluctuation on IF is totally normal. I'm doing Leangains, and my weight can fluctuate as much as 6+ lbs depending on when I weigh in. It's for this reason I'm a fan of taking a measurement when I wake up, when I go to sleep, Averaging them, and then doing a "moving" average of 5 and 10 days. That way you can easily still see the downward trend and not get discouraged.
|
| # ? Mar 22, 2011 20:01 |
|
|
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...10403090259.htmThat article posted:Routine Periodic Fasting Is Good for Your Health, and Your Heart, Study Suggests Same Great Paste fucked around with this message at Apr 4, 2011 around 16:42 |
| # ? Apr 4, 2011 16:40 |
|
|
Is there any truth or info on appetite suppression pills? I get these cravings that I don't always have the will power to fight. If I could get a small reduction in the craving or even benefit from the placebo effect I'd be fine with that. Any thoughts?
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2011 17:20 |
|
|
simcole posted:Is there any truth or info on appetite suppression pills? I get these cravings that I don't always have the will power to fight. If I could get a small reduction in the craving or even benefit from the placebo effect I'd be fine with that. Any thoughts? Ephedrine / Caffeine stack is by far the most effective, and is pretty cheap and easy to get. Also, whenever I get a hunger craving I just chug a bunch of water and it goes away. http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...40&pagenumber=1
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2011 18:26 |
|
|
I love IF, I've been eating this way for about a year and it works really well for me. I am now in a work situation where it is really only convenient for me to work out in the mornings before work, around 8:30... but I usually break the fast at noon exactly, and I would like to stick to that. Does anybody else have experience with a schedule like this? FWIW, I'm currently happy with my body comp., aside from wanting to shave down a few body fat percentage points. I get enough protein as is (1.5g/lb), just in two meals at noon and at 7.
|
| # ? Apr 5, 2011 04:59 |
|
|
nous_ posted:I love IF, I've been eating this way for about a year and it works really well for me. I am now in a work situation where it is really only convenient for me to work out in the mornings before work, around 8:30... but I usually break the fast at noon exactly, and I would like to stick to that. Does anybody else have experience with a schedule like this? FWIW, I'm currently happy with my body comp., aside from wanting to shave down a few body fat percentage points. I get enough protein as is (1.5g/lb), just in two meals at noon and at 7. If you're going to be working out fasted in the morning it would be a good idea to ingest a few grams of BCAA 10-15 minutes before you start, to prevent loss of lean body mass. You should also get some BCAA an hour or so after if it takes more than two hours after your workout before you break the fast.
|
| # ? Apr 5, 2011 09:37 |
|
|
I’m definitely interested in doing this. I started working out again and am looking to get leaner for the summer and go on a bulk or something when I feel the time is right. I work M-F 9-5pm; I usually go to the gym about 4-5 times a week from Su-Thursday. On the weekdays, I usually go right after work and on Sunday, usually around mid-day. I’m curious, how important is the meal format during the feasting phase? I’m not talking about the macronutrient contents but like the % of calories in each meal or something. I’m used to eating a huge lunch (around 12pm), eating a small snack pre-workout (like some nuts and a banana), a protein shake post-workout, and a medium-sized dinner (~400-500 calories). Anybody see anything wrong?
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2011 22:39 |
|
|
Same Great Paste posted:http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...10403090259.htm "Fasting... decreases the number of fat cells in the body" seems to be the only part that actually supports the claim of a health benefit except 1) this is obvious and they probably didn't even measure it so this probably has nothing to do with their study, and 2) I thought that burning fat doesn't actually reduce the number of fat cells? Without an actual journal article it's pretty pointless to even look at this I guess. mystes fucked around with this message at Apr 12, 2011 around 23:12 |
| # ? Apr 12, 2011 23:06 |
|
|
Geno posted:I’m curious, how important is the meal format during the feasting phase? I’m not talking about the macronutrient contents but like the % of calories in each meal or something. I’m used to eating a huge lunch (around 12pm), eating a small snack pre-workout (like some nuts and a banana), a protein shake post-workout, and a medium-sized dinner (~400-500 calories). Anybody see anything wrong? Martin says that if you're eating one pre-workout meal it should be about 20% of your calories for the day. Just reverse what you're doing now and you should be fine.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2011 23:56 |
|
|
mystes posted:Can someone explain what part of that study actually shows that "routine periodic fasting is... good for your health"? By the commonly accepted theory of heart disease LDL increasing more than HDL is bad, right? I guess if cholesterol is bad this might still be a good thing if the increase in LDL is less than the dietary cholesterol that would otherwise be consumed but this stupid press release doesn't bother to explain if that's what they mean. I was wondering about it too. I wasn't sure if this was a temporary change in these cholesterol levels or what. If it's temporary, and just during fasting, then maybe it is not so bad. It's also possible that the change (14% and 6%) is within such a small range that it is negligible in terms of its own health consequences. It would be nice if someone who knew more about this could say something though
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 12:06 |
|
|
I'm not into IF but if I remember correctly, during weight loss cholesterol is released and the levels are elevated but only temporarily.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 12:48 |
|
|
mystes posted:Can someone explain what part of that study actually shows that "routine periodic fasting is... good for your health"? By the commonly accepted theory of heart disease LDL increasing more than HDL is bad, right? I guess if cholesterol is bad this might still be a good thing if the increase in LDL is less than the dietary cholesterol that would otherwise be consumed but this stupid press release doesn't bother to explain if that's what they mean. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.or...0/1386.abstract The short answer is that LDL quantity doesn't have anything to do with heart disease one way or the other. LDL *RECEPTOR* activity is what has an effect. You can have a nice low looking cholesterol number, but if your diet is high sugar and low protein/fat then your ldl receptors won't be stimulated, and you will be at risk. HDL is only necessary after plaque has formed, and you avoid plaque, in IF, by giving your body ample opportunity to absorb and use glucose, and keeping hunger regulated, so that insulin doesn't spike all day. Catecholamines are part of that process. I say only 'necessary' in the sense that having a particularly high hdl is protective because it can reduce plaques, but in an otherwise healthy person without plaque, the heart attack risk, one way or the other, is indifferent. Also, the most reliable marker for heart disease is Vldl and blood born triglyceride levels, not ldl in general. Vldl is overproduced in situations where ldl receptors are not stimulated--not as cause and effect, but they have a common root cause.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 03:59 |
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.or...0/1386.abstract That said, aren't you getting the abstract you linked to backward? It says that insulin stimulates LDL receptor activity.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 12:24 |
|
|
In White blood cells. That's what a leukocyte is. http://www.jlr.org/content/37/2/237.full.pdf this suggests that adipocytes react the opposite way. I picked that one because immune activity is an outlet for excess energy (which means it's a potential cause of inflammation, which is implicated in metabolic syndrome) and because insulin resistance caused by longer term hyperinsulinemia (which can occur without being diabetic or near-diabetic--it just depends on how your body's specific tissues react--some people's fat becomes resistant at the same rate as the rest of their body). And what you asked was what I was answering. You can't be impatient about this stuff--it's a huge pile of information to get through. IF helps cholesterol because it tends to work with the body's regulation of ldl receptor activity to keep your blood vessels clear of plaque--or rather, it's more in line with your body's expectations of self regulation than constant foraging--especially if that foraging is the modern diet of high-yield sugar and starch packets in 99% of meals (oatmeal and fruit juice for breakfast, fries with your sandwich, pretzels for a snack, salsa and chips with your burrito--all day). The disregulation of cholesterol doesn't happen in normally studied hormonal responses--that's the whole point. It is a byproduct of insulin *resistance* when insulin levels are chronically high, combined with other antagonists like inflammation, fat cell accumulation, fat infiltration of organs (like the liver, when it's constantly awash in fructose, which supersaturates its nutrition needs and causes it to become fat like you're a pate goose), and nutrient malabsorption from high blood glucose levels and resistance that prevents regulation that responds to those levels by altering serum levels of other nutrients. You don't have to tell me what you asked. I can see what you asked. If you don't understand the answer, I can try to explain more.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 18:05 |
|
|
I think I see your meaning now; you're saying that if adipocyte LDL receptor activity is decreased then increased levels of LDL aren't bad?Since this still isn't obvious to me could you give a source showing that adipocyte LDL receptor activity is inversely correlated with heart disease? Anyway, thanks, that helps explain why LDL might not be of concern in that study. Unless I'm still missing something it still doesn't answer the question of what positive health effect was measured, though. mystes fucked around with this message at Apr 14, 2011 around 22:34 |
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 22:11 |
|
|
Er sort of. I guess what I'm saying is that, normally, the body regulates energy different ways. If you take in glucose, it spends it, and tries to restrict the amount the amount that goes into fat in favor of using it for immediate needs. When you soak all those needs, you then have excess, which overflows into fat--meanwhile hunger regulates what you take in. All that works great until you are insulin resistant. Then the triggers which would enhance ldl receptor activity aren't happening anymore, and the fat can end up as plaque. Coincidentally, diets which are constantly causing insulin spikes and saturating the liver with glycogen cause a) fat creation and b) insulin resistance, which lead to ldl receptor inactivity, but plenty of ldl cholesterol, and that's what's bad. IF avoids this by giving the body a chance to burn the fuel it gets, remain insulin sensitive, and helping you maintain regulatory responses like feeling full. I mean, there's more to it than that. There are deficiencies you can develop from constant exposure to high blood glucose, that build on each other. For instance, serotonin creation is motivated by glucose, but glucose inhibit tryptophan absorption (which is a precursor to serotonin). Part of serotonin's effect is to encourage you to stop eating, but if you are always at an elevated glucose level, you may find your brain behaving as though it has a serotonin shortage--encouraging you to eat more glucose which encourages the same absorption problem--etc. The positive health effect, I think, they're pointing out is that the ratio is better--more hdl and less blood triglycerides. Plus the ldl was probably bigger and fluffier, and had less vldl. <-- not to beat a dead horse, but the deal with blood triglycerides and vldl is that your body is making fat, but it's not going where it's supposed to, whereas if it's just fluffy ldl and hdl, then you're making fat, but it has a place to go, and there's nothing to worry about, even if there's alot.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 22:49 |
|
|
Gotta love when you go 20/4 and you're ok on just a hanful of almonds all day until 7-8pm, but whenever you have a medium sized lunch you are famished by 5-6pm...
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2011 00:49 |
|
|
Well this is certainly intriguing. I'm tempted basically to add one or two 24hr fasts to a week. I think it'd be easy planning wise, after dinner one night just don't have dinner until the next night. The whole weight loss aspect isn't as interesting to me as the effects on insulin, and I (wrongly?) read something about how IF can help clear damaged mitochondria? God knows where I heard it. I've recently been theorising, and drawing an analogy from the flight/fight (sympathetic) cortisol response and the insulinaemic state, that the cortisol response is important but not good to be in indefinitely, as is the insulinaemic state, and by being in such a state most of the time you prevent the body from doing a lot of maintenance regarding other things. This sounds half science half pop-science but I'd like to look into it further. So how do others feel about the 24hr fasts once or twice a week? And regarding exercise, if I was doing this once a week fast, would it be best to fast immediately before the exercise or immediately after?
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 14:54 |
|
|
echinopsis posted:Well this is certainly intriguing. This is the exact method and science used in Brad Pilon's "Eat Stop Eat". http://bradpilon.com/weight-loss/ea...riodic-fasting/ Also there are have plenty of studies on calorie restriction's effects on anti-aging. EDIT: As for your question about exercise, in "Eat Stop Eat", Brad notes that as long as you eat SOMETIME between your weight lifting sessions, you will be fine. I have also found this to be the case. I have found that nutrient timing is a waste of time. A lot of the recommendations for Pre and Post workout nutrition are based on having a transient increase in protein synthesis, which no one really knows if it has any benefits. If I've learned anything from nutrition, it's that unless there's rock solid evidence behind doing something, it's pointless to waste time worrying about it. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at May 2, 2011 around 15:36 |
| # ? May 2, 2011 15:26 |
|
|
Question, That article stated that a 24 hour fast can reduce the number of fat cells in your body. I thought it was impossible to eliminate fat cells in your body once they were created and you could merely "empty" them out. Could someone elaborate on this?
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 18:24 |
|
|
BadLlama posted:Question, That article stated that a 24 hour fast can reduce the number of fat cells in your body. I thought it was impossible to eliminate fat cells in your body once they were created and you could merely "empty" them out. Could someone elaborate on this? I'd asked Lyle McDonald about apoptosis and his response was that it takes very extreme circumstances to quickly kill fat cells like cancer or HIV then linked me this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9038586
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 18:42 |
|
|
"Fasting causes hunger or stress. In response, the body releases more cholesterol, allowing it to utilize fat as a source of fuel, instead of glucose. This decreases the number of fat cells in the body," says Dr. Horne. This is the quote in the article I am referring too if it helps.
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 18:55 |
|
|
e:f,b by uziel. That says is pretty straight forwardly, and now I can finally search the right term. Yay.BadLlama posted:Question, That article stated that a 24 hour fast can reduce the number of fat cells in your body. I thought it was impossible to eliminate fat cells in your body once they were created and you could merely "empty" them out. Could someone elaborate on this? Well, it's possible for fat cells to die: http://education.vetmed.vt.edu/Curr...RY2/PAGE5-3.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_...#Histopathology Lipase is an enzyme which clears fat cells and builds as you starve to make your fat available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1165327/ I don't know if they have direct evidence or if they're inferring that, given that this enzyme *can* kill a fat cell, and that it is increased as a response to the need for energy to be released, the habitual pursuit of this state will keep levels of the enzyme elevated, and therefore, it seems logical that it would prune fat cells over time. Lipase, btw, is a broad category of chemicals. Lipoprotein lipase is responsible, I think, for where fat goes, so if it's active in fat cells, that means more fat storage, not less. This talks about how fat is kind of an intermediate state between metabolic processes: http://books.google.com/books?id=mV...20death&f=false and lipase is a regulator on whether the fat gets used or not. But the punchline, more or less, is that in the same way you can be catabolic, and muscle cells can be consumed or just die off, fat cells are alive, and if circumstances are right in the body, they can die off or be consumed as well. The idea that fat cells are permanent is a reaction to the fact that they're extremely elastic, and can be spontaneously generated near almost any other kind of tissue. So, unlike muscle, for instance, you could potentially become obese, and then thin, and still have some fat deposits that were created during the obese phase hanging out in deposits in various places--for instance clinging to loose skin, because they haven't received sufficient pressure to be consumed, once healthier metabolism is achieved. Part of what drives obesity is the starvation of non-fat tissues, so when that stops happening, the enzymatic process that triggers fat release, one would think (and seems to be the case) is no longer triggered as powerfully. IF uses regular starvation to maintain this trigger even after cells are nominally 'well fed'. Whereas if you had been a bulky steroidal monster, and stopped working, you would not have lingering muscle clinging to random new locations on your body. Muscle doesn't colonize new areas of the body according to metabolic traffic jams. You'd probably still have more muscle cells in muscles, but they'd be in the groups that were worked, not surrounding internal organs, or clinging to skin, or whatever.
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 18:56 |
|
|
BadLlama posted:Question, That article stated that a 24 hour fast can reduce the number of fat cells in your body. I thought it was impossible to eliminate fat cells in your body once they were created and you could merely "empty" them out. Could someone elaborate on this? Since I'm a lazy gently caress I'm doing Slow Burn once a week.. Should I do it the night before I fast, the night after I fast or another night altogether? If the HGH thing is correct, perhaps after the fast? I'll fast for ~24hrs, have dinner then put the kids to bed then slow-burn.. I think?
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 21:05 |
|
|
Interested in giving this a go, although with my schedule, I would probably have to have my feeding period in the morning (which is also when I work out). I get why the 1-9pmish feeding period is preferred, going to bed with a full stomach and all, but wanted to see if anyone has had success with a morning feeding period.
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 21:46 |
|
|
quotison posted:Interested in giving this a go, although with my schedule, I would probably have to have my feeding period in the morning (which is also when I work out). I get why the 1-9pmish feeding period is preferred, going to bed with a full stomach and all, but wanted to see if anyone has had success with a morning feeding period. There is nothing magical about the feeding period being in the evenings, it's just the most convenient way for most people. Morning should work just as well.
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 23:02 |
|
|
I had 2 meals yesterday with my last being at 7:30pm. I fasted until 5:30pm today, where I had 1 pound of shrimp and 1 pound of tilapia, cooked in butter and coconut oil. I am stuffed and I don't ever want to eat again.
|
| # ? May 3, 2011 01:06 |
|
|
How does this diet cope with alcohol intake? If I plan on drinking moderately consistently, should I just move my fasting period to something like 6PM-2AM? Secondly, can anyone in this thread relate this diet to weed use? Like, I can generally go a long time without eating if it's just inconvenient to do so, but I do get the munchies pretty hardcore if I smoke. Are munchies somewhat of an extension of the hunger problems that go away after a few weeks of adapting, or should I just make sure to not smoke during times I would be fasting? Not really a body builder or anything, I maintain a decent height to weight ratio (bout 6'4 and 170) and mainly focus on cardio as my exercise (love me some running), so I don't really care how the above two things affect my ability to build muscle or what have you, just mainly wondering how a diet like this works in relation to a typical college life.
|
| # ? May 4, 2011 22:09 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 01:51 |
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Secondly, can anyone in this thread relate this diet to weed use? Like, I can generally go a long time without eating if it's just inconvenient to do so, but I do get the munchies pretty hardcore if I smoke. Are munchies somewhat of an extension of the hunger problems that go away after a few weeks of adapting, or should I just make sure to not smoke during times I would be fasting? I don't understand your goals. Why are you trying to change your eating habits? Munchies never go away, but you can learn to control their impulses and that skill can help control hunger better when trying to lose weight.
|
| # ? May 4, 2011 23:01 |
|
