Poliquin's Article Against Intermittent Fasting

[Samuli Jyrkinen]

new http://www.charlespoliquin.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/971/The_Pros_and_Cons_Intermittent_Fasting_.aspx

 

What do you think?  I have been intermittent fasting since last Fall and feel awesome. But I believe Poliquin has been fighting against IF since he heard about it, before even reading about it because it fights against his beliefs/principles.

[Edgaron]

You feel awesome for the reasons Poliquin explained. I felt awesome for the same reasons.

 

The protein synthesis point is a fact. Layne Norton's research shows that protein synthesis is maximized with more frequent, equal feedings throughout the day. It's maximized with equal 4-5 pulses (from his research).

 

I'm not much of a fan of Poliquin but he knows quite a bit.

[Razz]

I think it's a very good article, that states what many people have already discovered:

 

- IF is not optimal if you want maximal amounts of muscle mass

- IF is not for anyone with adrenal/stress issues

- If you are a woman there is an even smaller chance that IF will work for you

- IF can work for some people, but may give long term problems

 

 

Also by now most of the life extension benefits of IF have been shot down  (check Stephan Guyenets writing), so if you are interested in athletic performance I do not see a reason to do it.

[Larry Roseman]

It's an interesting article, well written and documented. It's not written by Poliquin himself - just the trademarked Poliquin - his team. 

 

I do think it gives short-shift to the value of insulin as an initiator for muscle growth - it is a potent anabolic hormone. And it doesn't factually prove that IF contributes to resistance, but smears it anyway.

 

Also using Ramadan studies to suggest IF creates fatigue is debatable as during Ramadan people are up before sunrise to have their first meal, and often do not go back to sleep. 

 

Also fact checking  may be needed.

 

The article stated:

 For example, a 2010 study of active, but unweight-trained men on a calorie-restricted diet that provided a robust dose of 1.5 g/kg/bw of protein a day resulted in a 20 percent reduction of protein synthesis after 10 days. The effect was a 1 kg loss of lean mass.

 

However the actual research study only indicated a loss of 1KB of BM (body mass, not lean body mass).  There is a  a different implication between the two.

Pasiakos  et al. (2010) determined rates of skeletal muscle protein synthesis (MPS)  and intracellular 

signalling events in response to either 10 days of energy balance or 10 days of moderate energy deficit  (~80% of estimated energy requirements)  in physically active (but not athletically trained)  adults.  Dietary protein (1.5 g/kg body mass (BM)/day) and fat intake (~30% of total energy) were similar for both interventions.

 

Compared to energy balance, subjects lost a small amount of BM (~1 kg) after 10 

days of energy deficit. Basal rates of MPS  were reduced 19% (P<0.05) while  the phosphorylation 

state of selected synthetic intracellular signalling proteins were also lower in response to acute energy restriction. While the results of this study are of interest to sedentary individuals

attempting to lose ‘weight’, it is unclear how they can be applied to athletic populations,  especially strength-trained  athletes who are likely to be undertaking strenuous daily training sessions with appropriate nutritional  recovery strategies (i.e., post-exercise protein supplementation).  

 

So like most blogs it's written to prove a point, and justify what they already want to believe and promote.

 

The main advantage for IF is it's a caloric restriction many people can adhere to more easily. Also, the larger deficits are easier to calibrate - getting a small 300-500 daily deficit accurately is quite a challenge on a varied diet.  And some people find it easier to not eat at all in their schedule  But it's probably not ideal if you're very active or in training. Patrick Smith is following it - it can work but it's tricky. Perhaps he can shed more light on a personal level.

[Joshua Naterman]

People want stupidly easy ways to avoid the consequences of their lifestyles. IF dangles that carrot, and people love to nibble.

 

IF is not a good idea as the basis for any kind of diet.

 

It works against your health from an endocrine perspective as well as an energy substrate and energy balance perspective. These all intertwine into a nice, thick rope that leads to very bad places when you slide down.

 

 

 

 

The only "IF" protocol that may not be a terrible idea is LeanGains, and I have talked before about why this works, why it probably isn't a health hazard (assuming you make good food choices), and why you will still get better results from other methods.

 

 

 

 

Don't mistake the way you feel for the actual state of your health. Drugs provide similar masking effects, and the hormonal changes that IF causes will make you feel good in similar ways, but are not indicative of actual health improvements. Clinical research shows, frighteningly consistently, that IF is bad for your health in many ways.

 

 

 

As for Poliquin's internet machine, they're not much more than a semi-talented hype crew at this point. It's sad, but he's staying in business so I guess it's working.

[Samuli Jyrkinen]

I am following the LeanGains(8/16) protocol. Since I was a kid I have never really been hungry in the morning but I used to eat breakfast just for the sake of it, usually very small portion of calories. Nowadays my life isn't really any different except I just skip the breakfast which I never really wanted to eat anyway which is why the LG fits for me very nicely. I think this LG style IF is basically what many are doing without knowing it, not many can even eat much in the morning but many try to because people keep saying how important it is for your health...

 

The article didn't really make clear what IF protocol they are talking about because I bet example LeanGains results differ A LOT from IF where you fast two complete days per week...

[Joshua Naterman]

Technically speaking, LeanGains is not IF.

 

Don't tell the public though.

[Igor Czerniawski]

On 11 February 2013 at 6:03 AM, Joshua Naterman said:

People want stupidly easy ways to avoid the consequences of their lifestyles. IF dangles that carrot, and people love to nibble.

 

IF is not a good idea as the basis for any kind of diet.

 

It works against your health from an endocrine perspective as well as an energy substrate and energy balance perspective. These all intertwine into a nice, thick rope that leads to very bad places when you slide down.

 

 

 

 

The only "IF" protocol that may not be a terrible idea is LeanGains, and I have talked before about why this works, why it probably isn't a health hazard (assuming you make good food choices), and why you will still get better results from other methods.

 

 

 

 

Don't mistake the way you feel for the actual state of your health. Drugs provide similar masking effects, and the hormonal changes that IF causes will make you feel good in similar ways, but are not indicative of actual health improvements. Clinical research shows, frighteningly consistently, that IF is bad for your health in many ways.

 

 

 

As for Poliquin's internet machine, they're not much more than a semi-talented hype crew at this point. It's sad, but he's staying in business so I guess it's working.

Totally disagree with your comment especially regarding health issue and I don't really care about that particular study. I have done my own I got rather positive results. I've done IF for over a year and never felt better. I'm 40, my running improved from doing 2 miles of over 13 min to under 12 min, and that's on the empty stomach, my blood test results and blood pressure are those of 18 year old. So I guess it must be doing some good for me. It wasn't never that perfect when I tried 4-6 healthy meals a day. I guess our primates didn't really eat balanced meals 6 times a day and from I know their didn't suffer from most conditions the modern human does. I know there's tone of other factors contributing to it but saying that IF is bad for you is very blatant. After a few weeks it didn't really feel like fasting to me and I think it shouldn't to most people once they eliminate sh..ty carbs from their diet. 

[Alexander Egebak]

Science is evidence-based and does not care about how people feel towards its conclusions.

As it is stated above, too, hormone changes due to IF-protocols (as studies also have concluded happens) happens to have significant influence on how you feel. But just because you feel well it does not mean that you are doing what is best for you.

[Igor Czerniawski]

34 minutes ago, Alexander Egebak said:

Science is evidence-based and does not care about how people feel towards its conclusions.

As it is stated above, too, hormone changes due to IF-protocols (as studies also have concluded happens) happens to have significant influence on how you feel. But just because you feel well it does not mean that you are doing what is best for you.

There's also evidence that is in favour. Saying this I wouldn't blindly follow suggesstion of the scientific evidence that suits my personal feelings. Many studies are flawed. The best evidence for myself is my own experiment. These changes are not just  some state of experiencing feeling well, but also marked increase in physical performance and blood readings. Should I change things back, feel a bit crappier, have my hormones closer to out of balance line because some study tells me that 16 or 18 hours without food is bad for me ?   Hell  no. 

[Alexander Egebak]

 

"The best evidence for myself is my own experiment"

Your experience means nothing statistically speaking towards experiments conducted on thousands of people. So many people have been included that the scientists even can explain the "feel good" of IF.

Other than that I prefer a having a factual discussion rather than an emotional one. You can justify your opinion by reading the studies linked here and bring up the flaws that you talk about.

You are free to follow IF if you prefer that, but do not encourage other people to do so when the majority of scientific evidence disprove of IF.

[Igor Czerniawski]

There is not point discussing it with you, since you have your mind set on one side of research that you even might not quite understand. I am quite grown up to be responsible for what I write. Anyone that feels encouraged can try IF and draw the conclusion for themselves. I am not sure you need to play an advocate here. I don't post here to argue about anything just gave my own experience. Since I find you very argumentative (not the first time), best if you don't reply to my post any more. Let's put the end to this conversation. Yes you are right IF is very bad for you. Don't try at home.

[Jon Douglas]

Guys, this little kerfuffle is against a comment made towards a study in a conversation that occurred three years ago. Josh very rarely drops by here anymore and you are unlikely to get a reply out of him.

I am not going to argue the nutrition as this is not my area; however as in all rational and productive discussions please attack the facts and findings not the person.

[Daniel Taylor-Shaut]

"very rarely" lol

[Petri Widsten]

I'm not familiar with IF so am not going to debate its effects. However, with most large scale studies on nutrition the conclusions tend to be based on the average outcome for large cohorts of people while there may in fact be a broad range of individual responses from negative to positive. I personally use such studies as a guideline but as I am an individual, not an average, I always rely on perceived effects on my wellbeing and annual blood tests to ascertain whether I've made the right choices.