GSP - Intermittent Fasting Changed My Life

EXOICHO said:
Oh, you wanted me to prove that? Why didn't you just ask instead of ranting about cardiovascular risk? You were the one who moved the goalposts to begin with, and now you're admitting you were wrong about that to begin with.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
Click to expand...
I've actually mentioned both the risk and weight loss in my post. Also, the research you've posted is almost 10 years old, lmao. The paper I've posted is much more recent. Moreover, the research you've posted spans only 4 months, while the research I've posted spans a year.

Also, just a basic glance at the paper shows exactly the same problem with intermittent fasting that was found in the paper I've shown: the HDL to LDL ratio (or total to HDL) becomes worse and it is this ratio that is a marker for cardiovascular disease, not just total cholesterol. From your own paper:

"Total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol were 11.7%, 16.8%, and 8.4% higher, respectively, in subjects consuming 1 meal/d than in those consuming 3 meals/d."

LDL increased by 16.8% while HDL increased by 8.4% (or you can use the total cholesterol to HDL ratio, the point is the same), thus the cholesterol ratio actually became worse, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease, lmao.
 
Dieting is for noobs with bad genes
 
I do it too combined with occasional 36 hour fasts. I feel great, have more mental clarity, better physique, convenient not eating the entire day etc.

However, it's definitely not for everyone. People shouldn't view this as some miracle lifestyle.
 
Deezer said:
I think theres a lot of arguments about this. So many people say its fine to have a tea/coffee and she and others say it isnt. As usual with this shit hard to find whos right,
Click to expand...
The easiest way to find out what works for your body is to do it. If you chart everything (reps at the gym, weight, mile times, whatever you're into), it's easy to make changes like drinking coffee or not and seeing how that affects you. Why wait for some scientist to conduct a study on something so simple?
 
SeattleFightFan said:
it fucking was lol

some thrive on it though. they look forward to how an empty stomach helps thinking clearly. i just never got any of that.

i'll check out one meal a day. not sure if i can pull it off. also, the gains i wanted to make when i tried different fasts (better bloodwork) i'm now second guessing the purpose. further research into bloodwork is showing that even when numbers get better, life expectancy does not. for example, there's a loose correlation between high cholesterol and early death, and statins lower cholesterol numbers....but don't actually lower early death rates. (https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2017/03/09/why-didnt-statins-protect-dad-from-clogged-coronary-arteries/)

so if the loose correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease isn't solved by lowering cholesterol using medicine, then what's my next move?

so i'm not sure where i'm going with all this anymore. stay healthy in general and enjoy life in a healthy way i suppose. not sure if one meal a day helps with that :) cheers.
Click to expand...

best of luck for whatever you end up going with!
 
I feel like it's very hard to figure out a workout schedule doing that, especially if you are 9-5. I tried it and I couldnt fit it in anywhere. in the morning you are too hungry to lift weights on a empty stomach, when I get home, I want to cook for my next meal, so the workout will land at like 10-11, which didn't feel good either because of how stuffed you are from a huge dinner.

I can see it working if you have a more flexible schedule. Like you can work out after your first smaller meal in the afternoon
 
Intermittent fasting is a cult. Assuming your goal is weight loss, If you eat 2,000 calories in 6 hours and starve for 18hrs is the same as if you eat 1,980 calories in 12 hours and starve for 12 hours (which is much, much easier). Why would you starve yourself for such a long periods if you could do it easier way. And it's less likely you'll relapse and quit the diet if it's evenly distributed through out the day.
 
awymore said:
The easiest way to find out what works for your body is to do it. If you chart everything (reps at the gym, weight, mile times, whatever you're into), it's easy to make changes like drinking coffee or not and seeing how that affects you. Why wait for some scientist to conduct a study on something so simple?
Click to expand...

Because its not easy to measure whether you are in or out of a fasting state. If i have a coffee or a tea I feel like ive had a coffee or a tea have no idea if my liver enzymes are working.
 
CasterMard said:
Intermittent fasting is a cult. Assuming your goal is weight loss, If you eat 2,000 calories in 6 hours and starve for 18hrs is the same as if you eat 1,980 calories in 12 hours and starve for 12 hours (which is much, much easier). Why would you starve yourself for such a long periods if you could do it easier way. And it's less likely you'll relapse and quit the diet if it's evenly distributed through out the day.
Click to expand...

maybe just do some research instead of calling it a cult.
 
SeattleFightFan said:
but the study he quoted was very generic. "breakfast is good". here's the first 2 sentences of the conclusion:

In conclusion, there really are a number of reasons as to why breakfast should be considered the most important meal of the day. The decision about if and what to eat and drink at the start of the day has been shown to have some profound effects on our health, well-being, and cognitive performance.​

notice that 'lowering body fat' is not one of the stated 3 profound effects.

just like kids shouldn't be doing kato (for obvious reasons and for reasons that author summarizes, including and especially cognitive performance), it's not mutually exclusive to also suggest that some adults will get a lot of value - albeit different values, like lowering fat - from a fasting diet.

in 10 years it's possible everyone will look back and see intermittent fasting as a 'fad diet'. but even that is a generalization, because most of those 'fad diets' still have a small % of the population for who the diet still works. today most people mock the gluten free fad, because most people didn't need the it. but for those who did and do, it was a game changer. similarly, most people who start an intermittent fasting diet won't stick to it and/or the benefits won't align with what they're trying to accomplish. but for a small %, it will still meet their goals.

PS: for me, breakfast sucks. it makes me almost as sluggish as lunch does. but for me, the 5-2 intermittent fasting didn't work either. and i see no benefits from only eating from 11am-7pm (even though i tend to do that). so i'm not championing any of the above. i'm merely cautioning against overgeneralizing diets. because the actual truth is, testing diets on humans using standard lab-like scientific methods is just too damn hard to do (because individual aspects are too damn hard to isolate) and most studies end up being inconclusive.
Click to expand...

i agree that 'diet' needs to be individualized to the individual and more importantly something a person can 'stick to'. The worst thing to do is make more radical changes for a short term that you cannot stick to which often cause a short term benefit followed by a long term rebound to a state worse than you started in.

For me I made a change a year ago to emphasize my dinner meal and stop the snacking despite the fact i was mostly a healthy snacker (nuts, etc). I focus on the 3 square meals starting with a big loaded up Oatmeal to start (on weekends it might be eggs of other), my lunch is now typically where I get my protein and what used to be more of my dinner meal (veggies, pasta or bread or rice), and dinner is typically more of COB salad type meal. I may have some popcorn in the evening as well. But that is really it.
 
LittleSmokey said:
I don't eat breakfast. I eat lunch and dinner only.
Click to expand...

That's what I do. I have coffee in the morning, but just black. It really isn't much of a change in diet. No insulin spike in the morning so I'm able to really concentrate. When I used to eat breakfast I'd usually feel more sluggish an hour after eating.

One thing everyone should be agreed upon is to limit sugar and sugar substitutes.
 
EXOICHO said:
you actually just said exactly what I said, but you didn't even realize it because you don't know what you're arguing. the study you just provided proved my point-- alternate day fasting provided weight loss even without calorie restriction. The study also doesn't show what types of foods each person is eating, their macro/micro balances, etc. You should read more and try to sound less obnoxious.
Click to expand...
Ehh? Nope.

From the study:

"During the 6-month weight-loss phase, the intervention groups were instructed to reduce their energy intake by a mean of 25% per day. To achieve this reduction, the alternate-day fasting group was instructed to consume 25% of baseline energy intake as a lunch (between 12 pm and 2 pm) on fast days and 125% of baseline energy intake split between 3 meals on alternating feast days. The daily calorie restriction group was instructed to consume 75% of baseline energy intake split between 3 meals every day."

So there was an alternative day fasting group (25% energy consumptions fasting day, 125% non fasting day) and a group that ate 75% each day. So, over ten days, both groups would have eaten 750% of their daily maintanence level, meaning they BOTH had the same amount of calory restrictions, which was -25%. They also had the exact same macros. So in reality, as the results on weight loss were identical, it doesn't support fasting being a better method.

Other studies have found a greater fat mass loss in obese people with intermittent fasting compared to continous restriction (keeping daily calories the same as in the previous study) (1), but most meta-analysis do not support increased physiological benefits nor weight loss efficiency for intermittent fasting at this time (2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

I'd like to know where all this amazing evidence is I keep hearing about.
 
People are conflating IF (intermittent fasting) and TRF (time-restricted feeding). TRF is one type (the least radical) of the various IF protocols. TRF also seems to have the best outcomes. The benefits are probably greater for those with poor insulin sensitivity. Also note that the versions of TRF that are interesting contain no element of caloric restriction. You just eat until satisfied.

I drink coffee (with a small amount of cream) from the time I wake until about 3pm. About the issue of coffee breaking the fast, there is no research to confirm or deny this hypothesis. It would be good to have this better clarified.

My eating window is about 4pm to midnight, or sometimes 6pm to 1am. Something like that. This is extremely convenient because I do not waste time thinking about how to make/buy breakfast and lunch. And then you focus only on consuming a large amount of healthy dinner. In some sense I have dinner, wait a while, and have seconds and thirds in the eating window. I am not hungry during the day and enjoy the feeling of knowing I can eat as much as I want at dinner. On the weekends I often have lunch (because it would be antisocial not to) and often this leaves me feeling slow. However, this weekend, I worked out both days in a fasted state and felt great. I consume a recovery drink right after and the fast is broken!
 
CasterMard said:
I'd like to know where all this amazing evidence is I keep hearing about.
Click to expand...

i never found any either.

but what i found is that many people found it easier to limit their intake by eating once a day - or eat 25% of calories twice a week - than to just 'eat less throughout the day'.

similarly, i'm sure some people find it easier to just eat 25% less at each meal, and make no other changes.

but here's the bad news; all studies on human diet pretty much suck. so if GSP found that fasting helped him, i think it's great. and if Rampage (or whoever) found that it didn't help him but some other tactic did, that's cool too.

because if the worst thing that comes out of this thing some people are calling "cult" and "fad" is that sometimes a small change in how or when you eat helps you (but not necessarily others), then that's pretty successful outcome. IMO.
 
Ive been doing it for over a month. Shortened the "eating window " from 8 to 6 hours. But....how the fuck do you get the proper macros in? Im always in a deficit.
 
I tried that once and i dropped weight like crazy. Sadly i cant keep myself from eating lunch and dinner at normal hours...
 
beastman said:
With gout I think you are supposed to avoid a Keto diet because of the amount of fat you are taking in.
Click to expand...
That and “fasting” although I haven’t found out yet what their definition of fasting is.
This is a new thing for me and am trying to figure out what I can do that will allow me to optimize my eating AND not promote uric acid buildup in my system. Pain in the ass really. I’ve been doing keto and/or high protein for a long time now and Now I’m a bit lost really. Haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,685
Messages
55,434,568
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top