Would BCAA/Fish Oil break intemittent fasting?

Discussion in 'Dieting / Supplement Discussion' started by Raging Daemon, Dec 28, 2011.

  1. Raging Daemon White Belt

    Raging Daemon
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thread title.

    Wondering if anyone knows if taking some bcaa's and/or fish oil during the fasting part of an intermittent fast would "break" it and thus not really make it a fast any longer?

    As a side-bar, is there some caloric or other threshold below which the body is in a fasted state? Apart from the obvious.

    Fairly certain bcaa's/fishoil/multi are fine, but doesn't hurt to be sure.

    Thanks in advance for your help!
     
    #1
  2. mmafreedom Purple Belt

    mmafreedom
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,082
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Martin Berkham recommends BCAAs before training and in cases where you don't eat for a couple hours post training he alsos recommends taking BCAA every couple hours. Multi would be fine, not sure about Fish oil though. I'm not a I.F know it all though so wait for others input.
     
    #2
  3. Raging Daemon White Belt

    Raging Daemon
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've heard the same BCAA suggestion which is why I started taking them when I started the IF thing.

    Fish oil is the big question mark it seems.
     
    #3
  4. Revok Brown Belt

    Revok
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Om Tat Sat
    It's pure fat, so it's hardly calorie-free. My guess would be you're supposed to treat it the same as you do all other foods.
     
    #4
  5. Arpie Orange Belt

    Arpie
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pretty sure fishoil is absorbed better when taken with a fat-containing meal. So what I would do:

    During fast: BCAAs + water soluble vitamins + supplements to be taken on an empty stomach
    During feeding: Fishoil + fat soluble vitamins + minerals

    Hope that helps
     
    #5
  6. Nemesis48 Blue Belt

    Nemesis48
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Orlando
    Just look at the nutritional facts on a fish oil bottle. It's saturated fat + calories. Would be similar as eating some gristle from a steak. In my experience MINISCULE amounts of food will not interfere with your IF, but I would not risk it. The only thing I consume while fasting is water.
     
    #6
  7. Raging Daemon White Belt

    Raging Daemon
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the input guys.

    Calorically speaking, my dose of BCAA is 40 calories 10 of which are from protein, and each fish oil dose is approximately 40 as well, albeit all of it from fat.

    That's why I asked if there was some threshold, or rule of thumb, because if BCAA's are agreed upon as ok in terms of not breaking the IF, given that it is the same amount of calories, what is it about the fish oil that would? Just the fact that it's fat vs protein?

    Arpie, you brought up something I wasn't even thinking about re: solubility. Now I'll be able to switch up when and with what I take my supplements.

    During fast: regular multi, bcaa's, (creatine + beta alanine + ALA) - mornings on exercise days

    During feeding: vitamin d3, magnesium, fish oil
     
    #7
  8. Madmick Stop Spoiling My TV Life (it's the one I like)

    Madmick
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    25,675
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Location:
    NorCal
    Your body is not meant to fast; there is a difference between the body benefiting from stress and from coping with stress. I know fasting is popular with numerous longtime posters in here, but I will again strongly voice my opposition to its recommendation, and that the majority of the science investigating the matter I've reviewed clearly indicates that it's not healthy. In fact, they've found an increase in the probability of unfavorable genetic-line mutations amongst individuals descended from populations that experienced extended periods of fasting (aka starvation). That means that people who have experienced starvation are more likely to have children with inferior physiology (ex. more prone to cancer).

    I know what the pro-fasters will say. "Fasting isn't starvation." Well, yeah, it is. It's just starvation in a shorter time frame.
     
    #8
  9. Raging Daemon White Belt

    Raging Daemon
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm interested in trying to min/max when I do most things. I've been using IF as a caloric restriction protocol and have mostly come across positive things in regard to it.

    If you could point me to the info on the counter argument I will gladly take a look.

    At what point would a generally accepted 8-12 hour "fast" between dinner and breakfast turn into harmful starvation?
     
    #9
  10. Madmick Stop Spoiling My TV Life (it's the one I like)

    Madmick
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    25,675
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Location:
    NorCal
    Nvm, I don't even consider that a "fast".
     
    #10
  11. Raging Daemon White Belt

    Raging Daemon
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    For IF I've been doing the 18 hours off with a 6 hour feeding window. I've done 24 hour ones twice a month or so as well.

    The reference to the dinner to breakfast "fast" was in quotations because it's not considered an actual fast.

    My question was more along the lines of at what point does it become a harmful fast according to the research you referenced reading? 14 hours? 16? 18? 24+?

    Also I would imagine something like 18 on 6 off would be less stressful on the body than 2 24 hour fasts a week etc.
     
    #11
  12. hardheart Brown Belt

    hardheart
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,289
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    While the path from scarce food supplies to a personal and genetic predisposition to cancer is fairly obvious, I'm not sure that fasting over a month or two would have enough of an impact on our DNA to actually mutate it. I'm not a geneticist so I can't speak on this authoritatively but I'm going to go with straw man. You're comparing societies that have been starved for thousands of years in some cases vs. a young Western adult who has decided to cut back on the calories a for a while. Not the same thing. That's like comparing a fucking Hot Wheels toy car to a Ferrari.

    I don't like fasting, either. I'd rather point to the kids you see in pictures from Africa where their stomach is distended and they are a sack of bones. You know why their belly looks full? Gas. They've starved for so long that their intestines are starting to eat themselves. That creates gas which then in turn bloats their gut. If there's anything people that are considering fasting don't want its their gut sticking out.
     
    #12
  13. Revok Brown Belt

    Revok
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Om Tat Sat
    WTF? This is wildly inaccurate description of the condition (it is a chronic fluid buildup in the peritoneal cavity, caused by parasites and organ failure; nothing to do with gas). And I don't think famine-belly is a risk commonly associated with IF.

    Your posts are terrible.
     
    #13
  14. ronin0352 Lift, Eat, Sleep, Repeat

    ronin0352
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    Am I the only one who noticed this?

    Other than that, I agree. If you're going to fast, then just fast. If you're only doing a 18 hour fast, there's no reason you can't just take your daily supplements before or after your fast.
     
    #14
  15. Seriously-Dead Purple Belt

    Seriously-Dead
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    113
    Alright, Christmas and finals are finished now so I can get back to wasting my time here. I feel I need to address this post especially since it's coming from a mod who a lot of people look at for advice.

    First of all, likening starvation to intermittent fasting is absolutely ridiculous. It's the same as likening starvation to minor caloric restriction - and I don't think you can debate the body of evidence that's been built over the last 50 years in support of caloric restriction for increasing longevity and inhibiting a lot of disease mechanisms (namely diabetes, obesity and cancer). Intermittent fasting is relatively newer, but the results so far have been incredibly similar to caloric restriction. If you can find evidence contrary to that, I would like to see it. And no, those Scandinavian starvation papers do not count. Chronic starvation and intermittent fasting are apples and oranges.

    I have stated in the past that the body works by absolute value. A blood pH 3 points above baseline is just as bad as blood pH three points below baseline. The same can be said for fasting-state mechanisms vs. growth mechanisms, or starvation vs. obesity.

    Let's say you eat constantly, instigating growth factors and the cellular pathways they promote. Anyway you put it, constant eating will illicit a constant insulin response, among other growth factors. This in turn stimulates the IGF-1 pathways like Pl3 or AKT + mTor, a pathway that once initiated begins a positive feedback loop (meaning more growth stimulates more growth). This also happens to be a primary pathway in cancer development. This is due not only to the growth nature of the AKT/mTor pathway, but because the downstream molecules like PKA or CREB inhibit DNA repair mechanisms like FOXO, AMPk and tumor-inhibiting p53. FOXO, p53 and AMPk are inihibited during times of growth (feeding), and they are responsible for a plethora of necessary processes - DNA repair, neuronal stress resistance, programmed cell death, glucose metabolism, peroxisome based anti-oxidant activity - the list goes on. That being said, over-exposure to the FOXO, AMP and p53 is in itself dangerous since growth is a necessary part of cell maintenance - especially through mitotic division. If programmed cell death runs rampant, well, I think you know what happens. Again, this comes back to the point that both growth and reparative processes have to be kept in balance. Straying too far on either side is dangerous. Peroxisome over-regulation is dangerous, because the pH in peroxisomes can destroy cells in a non-controlled process. DNA repair mechanisms inhibit cell division and growth. The list goes on. Both sides can be dangerous, but both sides of the coin are necessary.

    Technicalities aside, the very notion that constant feeding is necessary or even good for you shows a severe lack of understanding on how nature creates robust systems. Variability is a requirement for robustness. Exposure to variable conditions has shaped evolutionary processes since the beginning of life. To remove variable conditions, whether in the form of disease, allergens or bacterial exposure (ie: bubble kids) or in the form of feeding and fasting periods is to rob the body of the conditions in which it evolved. Conditions that the body requires to operate properly. This was most astutely observed in the advent of zoos. It used to be thought that cancer only existed in humans, but once we started putting animals in zoos, allowing them to eat ad libitum and live to old ages without being picked off by predators, we started seeing cancer in animals. Remove natural variability and you remove natural cellular function. It's no doubt that with the access to constant food, and therefore exposure to constant cellular growth, we've seen an explosion in cancer among all ages in our population.

    Here is a fantastic review article that discusses in much more detail the methods in which CR and IF behave the same way (and their differences), and how it impacts health and longevity. I only touched on a few mechanisms initiated by CR and IF, the paper explains quite a few others.

    ScienceDirect - Ageing Research Reviews : Caloric restriction and intermittent fasting: Two potential diets for successful brain aging
     
    #15
  16. Raging Daemon White Belt

    Raging Daemon
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    #16
  17. hardheart Brown Belt

    hardheart
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,289
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    I've read differently. Cursory search only shoes some forum from 5 years ago supporting what you post.* Good riddance.

    *Other than the obvious that famine starved countries typically have parasite problems with multiple causes.
     
    #17
  18. Nemesis48 Blue Belt

    Nemesis48
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Orlando
    IF is about the healthiest thing you can do for your health other than staying hydrated and getting enough sleep.

    It has amazing health benefits. I fast every day from 5-6 PM to 12 PM.

    I don't think anyone in this forum is advocating for starvation diets (that is, fasting for months or even weeks at a time), so we can do away with that straw man and red herring right now. The greatest fast period most IF proponents would advocate on this forum is a maximum of 36 hours.

    T NATION | John Berardi's Great Fasting Experiment
     
    #18
  19. Madmick Stop Spoiling My TV Life (it's the one I like)

    Madmick
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    25,675
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Location:
    NorCal
    Agreed. I didn't realize this until he mentioned his "fasting" window. I wiki'd "Intermittent Fasting" to brush up. I haven't done much reading on this topic. I think I remember Rob Wolff or Loren Cordain touching on it in one of their books, but it's a been a good while since I read it.

    I doubt there's much harm in it. And yeah, context is always king in these speculations; we're talking about modern day westerners, here. With all the research showing improved health benefits for those on long-term mildly hypocaloric diets: it seems alarmist to argue that this could have much negative impact.


    *Edit* Whoop, just saw Seriously-Dead's post. I agree, Serious. I was unaware of the "fasting" window in question, here. I thought we were talking about the fasts that have been popular on this board in the past (that last 3+ days with the subject taking psyllium husk and the goal often being to "purify" the lower digestive tract). Nevertheless, I'm curious after reading your post, particularly in regards to your mention of "variability", how you would feel about fasts of this length?
     
    #19
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2011
  20. PWR1982 Green Belt

    PWR1982
    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was under the impression that IF works, because eating one big meal could make it easier for some to keep a caloric deficit. And because it's simple.


    1, you eat a meal of 2500 calories, 3 hours before going to bed, not eating anything else the whole day.
    2, you eat a normal 500 calorie breakfast 1 hour after waking up, then fast X hours, then 3 hours before bed have a 2000 meal.

    Of course, overall macros being the same for both options.


    Could someone explain why the first option will be significantly better for fat loss/whatever? Is the difference not negligible?
     
    #20

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "fd5733925866a04e50edd70f38dfaa35"
monitoring_string = "603ac9fff68f23709f2a42bf5e29272b"