Intermittent Fasting - any experiences?

gohei_ said:

IF has been great to me in the 1 year time I have been following it. More energy during the day, performing a lot better in the gym, and not having to worry about fixing food at work. And it's great to be able to eat such large amounts of food until your'e completely full. Usually my eating window is around 2-6h long depending on how long I work out and if doing it fasted or not. It might not be the best way to diet, who knows? But it fits well into my life. A lot simpler than eating 5-6 meals a day.

Are you a teenager though?

I haven't tried the IF, as body composition or energy isn't a concern of mine at this time. Not against it.

It seems to work.

My feeling about diet is if you're a normal weight and eating reasonablly, it's about 5% of a recreational athlete's performance. Changing body composition quickly is another thing. Diet is at least 50% of that.

no I'm not. and I was already pretty fit before i tried it. it just makes eating in general a lot simpler.

gohei_ said:

no I'm not. and I was already pretty fit before i tried it. it just makes eating in general a lot simpler.

Cool

Ed Clements who is a fan of IF wrote about young people using it (on http://www.muscle-health-fitness.com/in ... blems.html)

"Despite intermittent fasting looking fantastic in theory, it may be an impractical eating regime for young people and athletes with fast metabolisms. Cramming massive amounts of calories into only a few hours will prove very difficult unless your appetite is enormous."

This is what siliz said above as well.

"It’s also worth noting that there have been no long term trials done on Intermittent Fasting and there is a lot we, modern humans, don’t know about it. There are many other lifestyle variables for young people to look at if they want to become leaner, more muscular and healthier before having to decide whether or not Intermittent Fasting will suit their lifestyle."

This is a good point to consider. Don't forget you are still growing.

However Clements adds ...

"Martin Berkan clearly says on his website that he has no problem at all with teens eating breakfast and Ori says that the Warrior diet can be done eating two meals a day if this suits the individual better.

There are also other Intermittent Fasting structures you could try – ‘Eat Stop Eat’ for example – but, as far as I can see, the same problems as the above will apply. It is always going to be difficult to cram a massive number of calories into a small eating window when your stomach capacity is only so big… "

I am 16 and play baseball. I do a sort of modified IF. I eat a huge breakfast in the morning(as "paleo" as possible) around 5:30 in the AM. I then fast until about 6 PM - 7PM when I get home. Once I get home I eat for about an hour straight. It works great for me because I refuse to eat the overpriced junk at school. I know I am meeting/exceeding my calorie requirements. I have more energy than my peers - always did. For me it works quite well. My bodyfat % is probably around 11-15%. My body comp isn't the best, but that is because of food choices available. Overall IF works great for monday through friday for me.

FutureisNow said:

gohei_ said:

IF has been great to me in the 1 year time I have been following it. More energy during the day, performing a lot better in the gym, and not having to worry about fixing food at work. And it's great to be able to eat such large amounts of food until your'e completely full. Usually my eating window is around 2-6h long depending on how long I work out and if doing it fasted or not. It might not be the best way to diet, who knows? But it fits well into my life. A lot simpler than eating 5-6 meals a day.

Are you a teenager though?

I haven't tried the IF, as body composition or energy isn't a concern of mine at this time. Not against it.

It seems to work.

My feeling about diet is if you're a normal weight and eating reasonablly, it's about 5% of a recreational athlete's performance. Changing body composition quickly is another thing. Diet is at least 50% of that.

No way. Diet has a lot more to do with performance than you realize. 5% is negligible. I'm pretty sure any rec league guy whose diet is off for even a day or two will tell you it affects him a lot more than that. Unless they are just eating like crap anyways, in which case they may not be able to tell the difference between feeling crappy and feeling crappier. There is such a point, I've been there.

Diet is a much larger part of body re-composition for sure, but diet is a big part of everything you do. Including taking tests at school. Seriously... what you eat or don't eat can affect your test scores by up to 20% according to quite a bit of research.

I agree with slizzardman, diet is HUGE. I've gradually gained more and more control over my diet and have been making it better and better over the last two years and it has made a dramatic impact on my energy and performance.

Me too. I haven't changed my overall training scheme all that much until the past two or three weeks, but cleaning my diet up has changed my body and my performance a lot over the last few months. I'm 202 lbs now, and becoming very lean. My strength is going up despite my weight going down, and my muscles aren't getting any smaller except my front delts and my chest since I can't use them all that much right now. That has every bit as much to do with how I am eating, and when, as my training does.

slizzardman said:

FutureisNow said:

gohei_ said:

IF has been great to me in the 1 year time I have been following it. More energy during the day, performing a lot better in the gym, and not having to worry about fixing food at work. And it's great to be able to eat such large amounts of food until your'e completely full. Usually my eating window is around 2-6h long depending on how long I work out and if doing it fasted or not. It might not be the best way to diet, who knows? But it fits well into my life. A lot simpler than eating 5-6 meals a day.

My feeling about diet is if you're a normal weight and eating reasonablly, it's about 5% of a recreational athlete's performance. Changing body composition quickly is another thing. Diet is at least 50% of that.

No way. Diet has a lot more to do with performance than you realize. 5% is negligible. I'm pretty sure any rec league guy whose diet is off for even a day or two will tell you it affects him a lot more than that. Unless they are just eating like crap anyways, in which case they may not be able to tell the difference between feeling crappy and feeling crappier. There is such a point, I've been there.

Diet is a much larger part of body re-composition for sure, but diet is a big part of everything you do. Including taking tests at school. Seriously... what you eat or don't eat can affect your test scores by up to 20% according to quite a bit of research.

"if you're a normal weight and eating reasonably" was the key phrase. And "reasonably" the key word.

In other words if you're covering your basic protein, caloric and nutritional requirements, it doesn't matter if you have a (god forbid) insulin spike in the middle of the day from eating a milky way or whatever. You are active enough to deal with that. It's not going to ruin your performance. It's a low priority item, even over a long period of time.

If you eat wheaties instead of sausage and eggs for breakfast, you are not going to fall flat on your face doing whatever you normally do.

If you eat 6 meals a day instead of 2 or 2 instead of 6 I don't think it would matter much, as long as your stomach wasn't bloated at the time of your activity. Your body will tend to deliver nutrients over the course of the day in any event. It's of little performance relavence.

I'm not sure there would be a measurable difference period. That's why I say 5%. It's within a normal recreational performance variance. Also, I'm talking stictly sports, where adrenaline tends to be predominant - not test taking, which is sublter.

Now if you're talking about a pro or elite level athlete, I think there may matter because even 5% matters, as they have maxed out most of their other controllable variables. Though there is a wide range of eating habits even at that high level, and I don't think performance can be mapped to a particular diet, other than one that is good enough to meet fundamental needs.

If I gave a recreational athlete a magic pill that he/she believed gave him/her the ability to perform better than ever before, just having that confidence would make a visible difference - so in terms of confidence - it may make a difference. The placebo effect of diet can not be ruled out.

But body composition is another story though. Losing dead weight may make the biggest difference to performance in lots of different sports (though not all).

So believe what you will, however I will continue to believe what I do until it is otherwise proven, not through authority.

actuary said:

I agree with slizzardman, diet is HUGE. I've gradually gained more and more control over my diet and have been making it better and better over the last two years and it has made a dramatic impact on my energy and performance.

Training for 2 years has a giant impact on energy and performance.

I have been following the lean gains protocol for one week now and the effect, at least for me, has been shocking.

I have struggled with yo-yo weight gain and loss for many years. A lot of that is due to a huge appetite and major food cravings. I am 'known' by friends, family and co-workers as a 'big eater.'

The 16/8 plan has counter-intuitively CRUSHED my appetite. I actully have to force myself to eat, even when I am well below my estimated BMR calories.

in the past I did a lot of compensation using very high exercise intensity and volume.

A string of injuries and a newborn baby (less sleep or time to train) have severly cut into that option so I decided to crackdown on the nutrition and studied up on IF.

Time will tell if the benefits continue, but so far I've lost 9 pounds with very little exercise (comparatively) and my appetite/craving issues have been obliterated.

I'll post some updates going forward to share how it goes.

16/8 is very convenient. I do more of a 14/10 but the same applies. It is just very easy to lose fat this way. It's also fun to pig out! You're eating the same amount of food but it feels like you're going all out at the buffet!

slizzardman said:

16/8 is very convenient. I do more of a 14/10 but the same applies. It is just very easy to lose fat this way. It's also fun to pig out! You're eating the same amount of food but it feels like you're going all out at the buffet!

I agree totally. It feels nice to fast 16-24h, do a workout and then just GORGE. After the feast you add up the calories and realize you've taken in even less than you would have during your normal meal regimen. Scary.

Update:

Have lost 14.4 lbs first month (230 to 215.6).

As mentioned, not doing much training volume or intensity at all. Much less than prior to IF.

Eating leangains 16/8 schedule and just really started really tracking my food over the last week.

So, the change has really been related to the IF schedule alone.

It has completely changed my ability to control my appetite.

Not sure how it will do for me when I'm training hard again (probably just fine) but has been crazy effective for plain ol' weight loss.

slizzardman said:

No. You NEVER train fasted unless you are severely over-fat and even then you have protein. With intermittent fasting all meals are around the workout. I should have mentioned that. 1-2 meals before the workout, and then however many you eat afterwards. It fits very well with my recommendations for ideal PWO nutrition.

Why never train fasted? My main concern is losing a couple of lbs and staying there, and I'm wondering if the "never train fasted" rule is mainly for the typical 'leangains' MO; ie stay trim gain muscle. What if I have no concern for slowly gaining weight?

If you have no desire to gain weight, just don't eat quite as much. Unless you have no desire to preserve muscle mass you should seriously consider at least having protein before and during the workout.

whaleysa said:

Update:

Have lost 14.4 lbs first month (230 to 215.6).

As mentioned, not doing much training volume or intensity at all. Much less than prior to IF.

Eating leangains 16/8 schedule and just really started really tracking my food over the last week.

So, the change has really been related to the IF schedule alone.

It has completely changed my ability to control my appetite.

Not sure how it will do for me when I'm training hard again (probably just fine) but has been crazy effective for plain ol' weight loss.

Curious whaleysa if this has continued? Usually that amount of weight that quickly is mostly water loss, due to

low-carb intake (carbo-HYRDATES). Did you change your diet or food quanity at all?

I've started a diet to lose maybe 5-7 pounds of fat, to get down to about 15% for appearance and to improve my strength/weight ratio aka performance. However, I do hate limiting my selections, the hunger, the radical change of activity, the tiredness ... need I go on?

Also, would like to perserve my fairly limited muscle mass, which I have read that IF is superior at this, than cutting and bulking cycles. Although those cyclical approaches with free food days and refeeds don't seem that much different.

One thing I'm wondering regarding mornings, if it is ok to drink a soluble fiber drink to fill the stomach in case of dire hunger or maybe generally to blunt it? I have a package of glucomannan (Konjak root) powder. It is 5 grams sol fiber per teaspoon. It is technically carbs but wouldn't produce any calories until fermented in the large intestine, way later. With meals this particular fiber is used to blunt insulin response in diabetics (50%) and I find it's easier to swallow than psyillium. Anyone for or against this idea?

Overall I'm shooting for about an 800 calorie deficit daily on non or light carido workout days, including activity expenditure. Not sure of the surplus yet on my 2 heavier workout days yet, but perhaps 300 calories. So maybe a pound a week of fat down the drain on average. So be the plan, and I am absolutely certain that I can stick to it and make it happen !

Cheers,

FIN

There are other takes on the IF principle that you might like. Feast and famine, alternate day diet and Johnson Up Day Down Day diet are all similar. Basically, every other day you have vastly reduced calorie intake. The Johnson diet advertises that it doesn't matter what you eat on it, but we all know better than that. Regardless, if you're trying to lose fat then you will eat 20-30% of maintenance calories every other day. Those are your "down" days. On OTHER days ("up" days) you would eat whatever amount of food you require for your activity level. It is a similar principle but you are not limited by inconvenient 8 hour windows. For some of us an 8 hour eating window is just fine, but for others it is just not practical. If that's NOT practical, then alternate day fasts are a great idea. I would suggest that fast days are nothing but low calorie veggies and salad, and maybe a protein shake or two, so that you can fill up easily and get tons of micronutrients without easily exceeding the calorie restriction.

When you go into maintenance mode after you have reached your goals you can eat up to 60% of maintenance calories on your down days. This is basically a permanent diet, and it's actually pretty easy. 60% of 2000 is 1200, and that's a surprisingly reasonable number of calories for someone who's just hanging out at the office.

Your body will very, very quickly get used to rationing out nutrients and will dramatically improve your insulin sensitivity and overall ability to maintain energy levels regardless of food intake.

This is a very natural thing to do too, I have always had a very sloppy version of this on and off. Having read more on the specifics helps a lot, and it makes a lot of sense, so maybe that would be something to look into as well.

You can also combine the two, since IF has nothing to do with calorie restriction. Doing them together should produce slightly better results if your schedule allows for it.

slizzardman said:

There are other takes on the IF principle that you might like. Feast and famine, alternate day diet and Johnson Up Day Down Day diet are all similar. Basically, every other day you have vastly reduced calorie intake. The Johnson diet advertises that it doesn't matter what you eat on it, but we all know better than that. Regardless, if you're trying to lose fat then you will eat 20-30% of maintenance calories every other day. Those are your "down" days. On OTHER days ("up" days) you would eat whatever amount of food you require for your activity level. It is a similar principle but you are not limited by inconvenient 8 hour windows. For some of us an 8 hour eating window is just fine, but for others it is just not practical. If that's NOT practical, then alternate day fasts are a great idea. I would suggest that fast days are nothing but low calorie veggies and salad, and maybe a protein shake or two, so that you can fill up easily and get tons of micronutrients without easily exceeding the calorie restriction.

When you go into maintenance mode after you have reached your goals you can eat up to 60% of maintenance calories on your down days. This is basically a permanent diet, and it's actually pretty easy. 60% of 2000 is 1200, and that's a surprisingly reasonable number of calories for someone who's just hanging out at the office.

Your body will very, very quickly get used to rationing out nutrients and will dramatically improve your insulin sensitivity and overall ability to maintain energy levels regardless of food intake.

This is a very natural thing to do too, I have always had a very sloppy version of this on and off. Having read more on the specifics helps a lot, and it makes a lot of sense, so maybe that would be something to look into as well.

You can also combine the two, since IF has nothing to do with calorie restriction. Doing them together should produce slightly better results if your schedule allows for it.

Thanks for the info Mr. Slizz.

An 8-10 hour window is fairly feasible for me, since I really only share dinner with my wife, and we generally eat late. And I'm not that anal about timing - if we go out for brunch at 11am Sunday I won't feel like a failure the rest of the week.

Is there good evidence of the benefits of the other approaches to IF, at least as much as Leangains?

I'm taking a moderate approach to the macros, dividing calories fairly evenly between protein, carbs and fat. On light days it's a lot lower carbs than I'm used to, and certainly more protein. I'm currently eating about .7 gm per pound bw of protein on the light days; will shoot for at least 1gm per pound on the heavier days. In general, I would protein to be a bit higher but that will take a few weeks to adjust. However I'm not trying to gain muscle mass while dieting - just maintain what's there.

I've considered more radical diets, like low carb, although I'm more of a fair and balanced creature by nature. Why fight mother nature if you don't have to? It's less stress, which is one reason diets fail. I'm getting grief at home just for making some small changes, like not eating as large a portion as usual of chow mein or rice Feast/fast sounds great though it would be even harder for me to run with, lol.

FIN

FutureisNow said:

Thanks for the info Mr. Slizz.

An 8-10 hour window is fairly feasible for me, since I really only share dinner with my wife, and we generally eat late. And I'm not that anal about timing - if we go out for brunch at 11am Sunday I won't feel like a failure the rest of the week.

Is there good evidence of the benefits of the other approaches to IF, at least as much as Leangains?

I'm taking a moderate approach to the macros, dividing calories fairly evenly between protein, carbs and fat. On light days it's a lot lower carbs than I'm used to, and certainly more protein. I'm currently eating about .7 gm per pound bw of protein on the light days; will shoot for at least 1gm per pound on the heavier days. In general, I would protein to be a bit higher but that will take a few weeks to adjust. However I'm not trying to gain muscle mass while dieting - just maintain what's there.

I've considered more radical diets, like low carb, although I'm more of a fair and balanced creature by nature. Why fight mother nature if you don't have to? It's less stress, which is one reason diets fail. I'm getting grief at home just for making some small changes, like not eating as large a portion as usual of chow mein or rice Feast/fast sounds great though it would be even harder for me to run with, lol.

FIN

Leangains is based off of recent short fast studies that have consistently shown that for the first 48 hours of a fast there is a significant up-regulation of bodyfat usage for energy and a significant conservation of bodily carbohydrates and proteins. That's the science behind it and the science looks pretty solid. Just as importantly, it has produced results for tens of thousands of people.

Same really goes for the feast/famine style of diet. They both help activate SIRT1 gene and they both do a good job of re-setting insulin sensitivity, though I think leangains has an edge there. Leangains also has a edge in that the research is actually done on humans instead of rats, but rat metabolism is so similar to our own that it is virtually guaranteed to be the same.

One of the advantages of feast/famine style is that you end up with a minimum of a net 20% caloric reduction over your life, which has been shown in a large number of species to increase lifespan by 20%. Now technically, those numbers show a 1:1 direct correlation between percentage of caloric reduction and percentage of life extension. It IS correlation, but it also is enormously strong in humans and is generalizing across animal species with classic experimentation which is NOT just correlative but also empirical. So the science on both is fairly solid.

slizzardman said:

Leangains is based off of recent short fast studies that have consistently shown that for the first 48 hours of a fast there is a significant up-regulation of bodyfat usage for energy and a significant conservation of bodily carbohydrates and proteins. That's the science behind it and the science looks pretty solid. Just as importantly, it has produced results for tens of thousands of people.

Same really goes for the feast/famine style of diet. They both help activate SIRT1 gene and they both do a good job of re-setting insulin sensitivity, though I think leangains has an edge there. Leangains also has a edge in that the research is actually done on humans instead of rats, but rat metabolism is so similar to our own that it is virtually guaranteed to be the same.

One of the advantages of feast/famine style is that you end up with a minimum of a net 20% caloric reduction over your life, which has been shown in a large number of species to increase lifespan by 20%. Now technically, those numbers show a 1:1 direct correlation between percentage of caloric reduction and percentage of life extension. It IS correlation, but it also is enormously strong in humans and is generalizing across animal species with classic experimentation which is NOT just correlative but also empirical. So the science on both is fairly solid.

Yes, I've heard about that finding and the lifespan correlation to weight. I wasn't aware it was actually the gene there that was at the bottom of it. That gene seems to kick in where there's a calorie deficit for a certain amount of time ( guess that 16 hours is enough). I haven't read that much about it. Now I'm not clear if one needs to actually shrink to benefit from this gene, or if just the IF protocol is enough to increase lifespan, even if you are maintaining or even gaining weight in the process?

I hear what you are saying about rats, and as close as I am to them critters (call me Willard) a long term study would be really interesting. That said the concept is pretty new. Ultimately we do shrink as we age, muscule mass inevitablly declines after 50 - 1% a year if I recall correctly. Fast(er) twich is lost first, and use thereof will minimze that. People like Lalane, and Weider who is 90+ though probably not as fit as Jack was then, are great examples of keeping it as together as possible well beyond the norm.

So, what is the experience on adapting the Leangainsmethod to our style of training?

LG is pretty much tailored to three high intensity workouts per week. Will it work with the WODs too?

3 days probably is best for recomp. But you can always just eat a surplus on

3 of the WOD days, and normally on the 4th. Then eat at a deficit the

other 3 days to "lean the gain".

It's probably a bit too much working out if you are focusing on weight loss though.

In that case 2 surplus days and 5 deficit days are more appropriate.

FutureisNow said:

3 days probably is best for recomp. But you can always just eat a surplus on

3 of the WOD days, and normally on the 4th. Then eat at a deficit the

other 3 days to "lean the gain".

That was my Idea too, I was just wondering if anybody has some experience with that. I am not really trying to loose weight but I tend to gain fat very fast and I want to minimize that while "bulking up".

Thanks for your reply!

Futureisnow, why do you think 3 days is best for body comp?

Because 3 workouts / week is typical for eating above maintenance, which leaves

about the same number of diet days. It's balanced that way.

If you're trying to lose fat without losing much muscle, then working out 2 days and having more diet days

will be better.

Did you read something on LG that said otherwise?