Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
body comp benefits from IF?
Options
jjpptt2
Posts: 5,650 Member
in Debate Club
I already hijacked 1 thread... I didn't want to hijack the meal timing thread too.
And let me start by saying I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, but I do find that I have a bit of an emotional bias with these conversations. So bear with me.
Every day there are threads that clearly state IF offers no advantages for weight loss than does any other form of calorie restriction (calorie deficit). I get that, I'm not arguing that. Weight loss is not what this thread is about. I'm wondering about body comp related advantages to IF.
If I maintain a modest calorie deficit, I'm going to lose weight. But, if I maintain that same calorie deficit following an IF protocol (for the sake of this conversation, let's say a 6hr feed window daily, not something like 5:2 or alternate day fasting), will/could there be any changes to how that weight is lost? What about the potential to gain muscle despite the modest overall calorie deficit? Assume everything else stays basically the same (training, macros, food choices, etc). Given the calorie deficit is the same in both scenarios, will there be a difference in body comp changes?
I have my thoughts based on what I've read and my own critical thinking, but I want to see where you all go with your responses.
And let me start by saying I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, but I do find that I have a bit of an emotional bias with these conversations. So bear with me.
Every day there are threads that clearly state IF offers no advantages for weight loss than does any other form of calorie restriction (calorie deficit). I get that, I'm not arguing that. Weight loss is not what this thread is about. I'm wondering about body comp related advantages to IF.
If I maintain a modest calorie deficit, I'm going to lose weight. But, if I maintain that same calorie deficit following an IF protocol (for the sake of this conversation, let's say a 6hr feed window daily, not something like 5:2 or alternate day fasting), will/could there be any changes to how that weight is lost? What about the potential to gain muscle despite the modest overall calorie deficit? Assume everything else stays basically the same (training, macros, food choices, etc). Given the calorie deficit is the same in both scenarios, will there be a difference in body comp changes?
I have my thoughts based on what I've read and my own critical thinking, but I want to see where you all go with your responses.
1
Replies
-
Who the heck knows really (assuming protein intake and strength training are equal)? I don't know that it's been studied, and my vague recollection from Alan Aragon discussing the issue is that it's really irrelevant.
I've been eating in a window for years out of preference so don't know any differently.
Sorry I'm not more helpful to you.
I know people are out there making claims, but I don't think there's real science to back them up.
In the end, as all the real experts say, any supposed advantage you might get from IF or not would be outweighed by whether or not you find it to be sustainable.
And that really is the bottom line. If it affects body composition or not, other methods do as well, and the whole point of attaining a certain physique is *maintaining* that physique. There's no sense in undertaking any sort of dietary measure, be it restricting food groups or eating patterns, that you can't sustain in order to achieve that goal.0 -
This is a very interesting question, and from what I've read... there isn't much research to support advanced body composition results from IF. If it helps you stick to a deficit and make progress with it, then that will help obviously, but so far it has not shown significant superior results. I know Alan Aragon posted about it on his page recently and basically said something similar.
This was one of the main studies referenced https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384657
0 -
As with Keto, it appears that there may be some minor percentage gains, but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.0
-
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?0 -
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
IF you're not maximizing all the other factors, then the 2-3% benefit gets lost in the noise/margin of error from the other factors you're not maximizing.2 -
More interesting reading
https://strongerbyscience.com/intermittent-fasting-study/
lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/0 -
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
I mean if you are a bodybuilder trying to squeeze out that last %, lose those last few grams of fat...doing everything you can, then hey, I would give it a try to nail it down to see if it helps (it can't hurt!). But get the calories, macros, nutrition down first which are proven to be most important... and if IF helps you get there by helping you keep that deficit, then that will help but not because of the fasting itself, but the adherence and consistency part. If you really can't handle IF (like myself) and nowhere near athletic bodybuilding bodyfat levels (like myself), then there is no point in forcing it on yourself.
In the end, I'd rather not waste too much time thinking about something unless it offers more significant differences in body composition. Which to be honest, I don't even think it does....nothing I have read in research so far is convincing enough and will make me change my current eating schedule.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
IF you're not maximizing all the other factors, then the 2-3% benefit gets lost in the noise/margin of error from the other factors you're not maximizing.
Thanks. I assumed that's what you meant, but wanted to be sure.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
IF you're not maximizing all the other factors, then the 2-3% benefit gets lost in the noise/margin of error from the other factors you're not maximizing.
Thanks. I assumed that's what you meant, but wanted to be sure.
It's very much like a beginner/novice lifter worrying about fractional plates or the difference between 85 and 90% max.
It matters to some people... and for them it probably matters a lot, because they're at a point where 10 minutes of sleep, or starting a workout an hour sooner or later has competition impact.
If you fit that category, then certainly dig deeper into the research. I found some of the info to be compelling.0 -
It does have an impact physiologically, but this impact is so low that it is instrumentally undetectable.
An individual would have to be at the extreme elite performance level to see any perceptible difference, even in these cases the differences are not statistically significant.
Psychologically however; this, and any other routine, serves as a powerful tool to drive consistency. Discipline results through training, instruction, and exercise, so logically the more stringent the regimen, the more consistent results.
1 -
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
I mean if you are a bodybuilder trying to squeeze out that last %, lose those last few grams of fat...doing everything you can, then hey, I would give it a try to nail it down to see if it helps (it can't hurt!). But get the calories, macros, nutrition down first which are proven to be most important... and if IF helps you get there by helping you keep that deficit, then that will help but not because of the fasting itself, but the adherence and consistency part. If you really can't handle IF (like myself) and nowhere near athletic bodybuilding bodyfat levels (like myself), then there is no point in forcing it on yourself.
In the end, I'd rather not waste too much time thinking about something unless it offers more significant differences in body composition. Which to be honest, I don't even think it does....nothing I have read in research so far is convincing enough and will make me change my current eating schedule.
I don't disagree. My reason for starting this thread was 2-fold:- Simply to learn (to either confirm what I thought I knew, or to give me a reason to think differently about this).
- To help figure out where IF fits in my overall philosophy.
Point #2 gets at what you are saying.
There are 1000s of things you can do that may or may not help you succeed. So how do you choose which of those things you do or don't do? For me, it's mostly about the return on investment. I want to get the most benefit while giving the least effort (least effort meaning fighting my normal tendencies/preferences the least).
So something that requires relatively little effort but yields relatively high results is most definitely worth doing. Something that requires relatively high effort but yields relatively little result is probably worth avoiding. Then there's the stuff in between.. high effort for high results, and little effort for little results.
For me personally... maintaining a calorie deficit falls into the high effort/high reward group. It's also an unavoidable part of weight loss and the overwhelming determining factor in weight management, so it is always and will always be #1 on my list of priorities. A post-workout protein shake falls into the little effort/little results group. It requires almost no thought/effort for me to do, so the fact that the results from it are small means it is still worthwhile (for me).
IF is similar for me. Most days, it requires no thought/effort to not eat in the morning. But it also requires very little thought/effort TO eat in the mornings. If there are benefits to be gained from not eating, even if the are small, then it makes sense to me/for me to not eat.
Does that make sense?
0 -
Yepp I agree with you, and I feel the same way. I do a lot of "bro-y" things that take minimal effort even with little scientific backing, but like you said, they are still worthwhile for me. Even if it is a routine/habitual thing.
But I wouldn't start doing IF, fasted cardio or weird other protocols since those things would make me suffer more than it could potentially be worth it.
I would say stick with IF if it is easy for you.. especially since I don't think there is any harm in doing so. I haven't read any studies saying it is negative for muscle retention or anything like that.0 -
I actually asked kind of a similar question months ago "When to take things to the next level?" and what I took away from it was to try certain things out for yourself and see how they affect your training and results. Research is great, and you can read all the articles in the world, but if I try I things (I call them "add-ons") like IF, fasted cardio, carb cycling, meal timing and it starts to negatively affect my performance and results, I am definitely not going to keep doing it just because one or two studies said it can be beneficial.2
-
So something that requires relatively little effort but yields relatively high results is most definitely worth doing. Something that requires relatively high effort but yields relatively little result is probably worth avoiding. Then there's the stuff in between.. high effort for high results, and little effort for little results.
For me personally... maintaining a calorie deficit falls into the high effort/high reward group. It's also an unavoidable part of weight loss and the overwhelming determining factor in weight management, so it is always and will always be #1 on my list of priorities. A post-workout protein shake falls into the little effort/little results group. It requires almost no thought/effort for me to do, so the fact that the results from it are small means it is still worthwhile (for me).
IF is similar for me. Most days, it requires no thought/effort to not eat in the morning. But it also requires very little thought/effort TO eat in the mornings. If there are benefits to be gained from not eating, even if the are small, then it makes sense to me/for me to not eat.
Does that make sense?
Agree with this.
I think if something makes a big difference in a lifestyle way -- is way harder to do or sustain -- worrying about the effect is irrelevant UNLESS not doing it makes your goal impossible or much harder. Here, that's not the case. (Similarly, since eating lots of mini meals or finishing eating by 6 pm would be difficult for me, all I care about is that I can lose easily/gain muscle without doing that -- although in those cases I also think it does not matter.)
If IF is easy for you, then you might be interested in whether it makes even a small difference for your goal.
I've seen a little evidence, not a lot, and it doesn't seem to be consistent for type of IF (which is one problem with IF discussions, as very different protocals or even all kinds of "fasting" get grouped together). What I've seen is some evidence that eating most calories before bed can be bad for weight loss (I know, not what this thread is about), but no variables controlled. I've also seen evidence that eating one meal a day can help with muscle gain (all else equal -- and for me it would be very hard to eat the same amount of protein in just one meal). On the other hand, I've seen some evidence that ADF can be bad for muscle gain.
If you (or others) think there is some strong evidence, I would be curious to look at it. (My own view is that OMAD most days wouldn't be as hard from a lifestyle perspective as, say, lots of little meals, but would be harder for me than eating three, in part because I think getting a certain level of protein and 10+ servings of vegetables and fruit (mostly veg) per day is desirable and both would be harder for me to impossible with only 1 meal. Skipping breakfast would be easier, but not as easy as eating three meals. I've not yet seen sources that that would be beneficial -- although I am open minded about the possibility that it might so long as we are talking small differences, and depending on the evidence it could sway me more toward some form of IF.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So something that requires relatively little effort but yields relatively high results is most definitely worth doing. Something that requires relatively high effort but yields relatively little result is probably worth avoiding. Then there's the stuff in between.. high effort for high results, and little effort for little results.
For me personally... maintaining a calorie deficit falls into the high effort/high reward group. It's also an unavoidable part of weight loss and the overwhelming determining factor in weight management, so it is always and will always be #1 on my list of priorities. A post-workout protein shake falls into the little effort/little results group. It requires almost no thought/effort for me to do, so the fact that the results from it are small means it is still worthwhile (for me).
IF is similar for me. Most days, it requires no thought/effort to not eat in the morning. But it also requires very little thought/effort TO eat in the mornings. If there are benefits to be gained from not eating, even if the are small, then it makes sense to me/for me to not eat.
Does that make sense?
Agree with this.
I think if something makes a big difference in a lifestyle way -- is way harder to do or sustain -- worrying about the effect is irrelevant UNLESS not doing it makes your goal impossible or much harder. Here, that's not the case. (Similarly, since eating lots of mini meals or finishing eating by 6 pm would be difficult for me, all I care about is that I can lose easily/gain muscle without doing that -- although in those cases I also think it does not matter.)
If IF is easy for you, then you might be interested in whether it makes even a small difference for your goal.
I've seen a little evidence, not a lot, and it doesn't seem to be consistent for type of IF (which is one problem with IF discussions, as very different protocals or even all kinds of "fasting" get grouped together). What I've seen is some evidence that eating most calories before bed can be bad for weight loss (I know, not what this thread is about), but no variables controlled. I've also seen evidence that eating one meal a day can help with muscle gain (all else equal -- and for me it would be very hard to eat the same amount of protein in just one meal). On the other hand, I've seen some evidence that ADF can be bad for muscle gain.
If you (or others) think there is some strong evidence, I would be curious to look at it. (My own view is that OMAD most days wouldn't be as hard from a lifestyle perspective as, say, lots of little meals, but would be harder for me than eating three, in part because I think getting a certain level of protein and 10+ servings of vegetables and fruit (mostly veg) per day is desirable and both would be harder for me to impossible with only 1 meal. Skipping breakfast would be easier, but not as easy as eating three meals. I've not yet seen sources that that would be beneficial -- although I am open minded about the possibility that it might so long as we are talking small differences, and depending on the evidence it could sway me more toward some form of IF.)
I know that skipping lunch doesn't really qualify as IF, but 2 years back while in SW Asia, I kept Ramadan with my local friends/work partners as a show of solidarity and to better understand and relate. Barring the no water/soda, I found that I tended to be more productive and energetic with a big breakfast and dinner... I didn't lose any weight, but also didn't notice any performance degradation. I tend to skip lunch anyway... by which I mean I eat it at my desk, So maybe I'll give that a go in a few months and see how it works out(minus the dehydration... which definitely was a negative).1 -
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
I mean if you are a bodybuilder trying to squeeze out that last %, lose those last few grams of fat...doing everything you can, then hey, I would give it a try to nail it down to see if it helps (it can't hurt!). But get the calories, macros, nutrition down first which are proven to be most important... and if IF helps you get there by helping you keep that deficit, then that will help but not because of the fasting itself, but the adherence and consistency part. If you really can't handle IF (like myself) and nowhere near athletic bodybuilding bodyfat levels (like myself), then there is no point in forcing it on yourself.
In the end, I'd rather not waste too much time thinking about something unless it offers more significant differences in body composition. Which to be honest, I don't even think it does....nothing I have read in research so far is convincing enough and will make me change my current eating schedule.
I don't disagree. My reason for starting this thread was 2-fold:- Simply to learn (to either confirm what I thought I knew, or to give me a reason to think differently about this).
- To help figure out where IF fits in my overall philosophy.
Point #2 gets at what you are saying.
There are 1000s of things you can do that may or may not help you succeed. So how do you choose which of those things you do or don't do? For me, it's mostly about the return on investment. I want to get the most benefit while giving the least effort (least effort meaning fighting my normal tendencies/preferences the least).
So something that requires relatively little effort but yields relatively high results is most definitely worth doing. Something that requires relatively high effort but yields relatively little result is probably worth avoiding. Then there's the stuff in between.. high effort for high results, and little effort for little results.
For me personally... maintaining a calorie deficit falls into the high effort/high reward group. It's also an unavoidable part of weight loss and the overwhelming determining factor in weight management, so it is always and will always be #1 on my list of priorities. A post-workout protein shake falls into the little effort/little results group. It requires almost no thought/effort for me to do, so the fact that the results from it are small means it is still worthwhile (for me).
IF is similar for me. Most days, it requires no thought/effort to not eat in the morning. But it also requires very little thought/effort TO eat in the mornings. If there are benefits to be gained from not eating, even if the are small, then it makes sense to me/for me to not eat.
Does that make sense?
Makes perfect sense - Pareto Principle applied to life. Focus on what matters. Return on Investment.
Pareto Principle - 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
For anyone obese the only thing that matters is CICO. Hormones and all the other intricate factors are so minimal that you simply won't see the impact. When you start getting into the low body-fat percentages and elite level performance is when you need to concern yourself over the minutiae.2 -
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
I mean if you are a bodybuilder trying to squeeze out that last %, lose those last few grams of fat...doing everything you can, then hey, I would give it a try to nail it down to see if it helps (it can't hurt!). But get the calories, macros, nutrition down first which are proven to be most important... and if IF helps you get there by helping you keep that deficit, then that will help but not because of the fasting itself, but the adherence and consistency part. If you really can't handle IF (like myself) and nowhere near athletic bodybuilding bodyfat levels (like myself), then there is no point in forcing it on yourself.
In the end, I'd rather not waste too much time thinking about something unless it offers more significant differences in body composition. Which to be honest, I don't even think it does....nothing I have read in research so far is convincing enough and will make me change my current eating schedule.
I don't disagree. My reason for starting this thread was 2-fold:- Simply to learn (to either confirm what I thought I knew, or to give me a reason to think differently about this).
- To help figure out where IF fits in my overall philosophy.
Point #2 gets at what you are saying.
There are 1000s of things you can do that may or may not help you succeed. So how do you choose which of those things you do or don't do? For me, it's mostly about the return on investment. I want to get the most benefit while giving the least effort (least effort meaning fighting my normal tendencies/preferences the least).
So something that requires relatively little effort but yields relatively high results is most definitely worth doing. Something that requires relatively high effort but yields relatively little result is probably worth avoiding. Then there's the stuff in between.. high effort for high results, and little effort for little results.
For me personally... maintaining a calorie deficit falls into the high effort/high reward group. It's also an unavoidable part of weight loss and the overwhelming determining factor in weight management, so it is always and will always be #1 on my list of priorities. A post-workout protein shake falls into the little effort/little results group. It requires almost no thought/effort for me to do, so the fact that the results from it are small means it is still worthwhile (for me).
IF is similar for me. Most days, it requires no thought/effort to not eat in the morning. But it also requires very little thought/effort TO eat in the mornings. If there are benefits to be gained from not eating, even if the are small, then it makes sense to me/for me to not eat.
Does that make sense?
Makes perfect sense - Pareto Principle applied to life. Focus on what matters. Return on Investment.
Pareto Principle - 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
For anyone obese the only thing that matters is CICO. Hormones and all the other intricate factors are so minimal that you simply won't see the impact. When you start getting into the low body-fat percentages and elite level performance is when you need to concern yourself over the minutiae.
This might be a bad example, and it might be more devil's advocate than actual curiosity, but...
Would telling an obese person to start lifting early in their weight loss efforts be similar? It might take 100lbs of weight loss before they see the results of their lifting, but we still tell them to lift? Why? Because all that work adds up over time, even if it took them 2 years to get to the point where they could see/benefit from those results.
Even if the benefits from IF are tiny... in Nov of 2021 when I finally reach my goal (thanks, Libra), I will have 3 years of tiny, incremental improvements to reap the benefits of.0 -
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
I mean if you are a bodybuilder trying to squeeze out that last %, lose those last few grams of fat...doing everything you can, then hey, I would give it a try to nail it down to see if it helps (it can't hurt!). But get the calories, macros, nutrition down first which are proven to be most important... and if IF helps you get there by helping you keep that deficit, then that will help but not because of the fasting itself, but the adherence and consistency part. If you really can't handle IF (like myself) and nowhere near athletic bodybuilding bodyfat levels (like myself), then there is no point in forcing it on yourself.
In the end, I'd rather not waste too much time thinking about something unless it offers more significant differences in body composition. Which to be honest, I don't even think it does....nothing I have read in research so far is convincing enough and will make me change my current eating schedule.
I don't disagree. My reason for starting this thread was 2-fold:- Simply to learn (to either confirm what I thought I knew, or to give me a reason to think differently about this).
- To help figure out where IF fits in my overall philosophy.
Point #2 gets at what you are saying.
There are 1000s of things you can do that may or may not help you succeed. So how do you choose which of those things you do or don't do? For me, it's mostly about the return on investment. I want to get the most benefit while giving the least effort (least effort meaning fighting my normal tendencies/preferences the least).
So something that requires relatively little effort but yields relatively high results is most definitely worth doing. Something that requires relatively high effort but yields relatively little result is probably worth avoiding. Then there's the stuff in between.. high effort for high results, and little effort for little results.
For me personally... maintaining a calorie deficit falls into the high effort/high reward group. It's also an unavoidable part of weight loss and the overwhelming determining factor in weight management, so it is always and will always be #1 on my list of priorities. A post-workout protein shake falls into the little effort/little results group. It requires almost no thought/effort for me to do, so the fact that the results from it are small means it is still worthwhile (for me).
IF is similar for me. Most days, it requires no thought/effort to not eat in the morning. But it also requires very little thought/effort TO eat in the mornings. If there are benefits to be gained from not eating, even if the are small, then it makes sense to me/for me to not eat.
Does that make sense?
Makes perfect sense - Pareto Principle applied to life. Focus on what matters. Return on Investment.
Pareto Principle - 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
For anyone obese the only thing that matters is CICO. Hormones and all the other intricate factors are so minimal that you simply won't see the impact. When you start getting into the low body-fat percentages and elite level performance is when you need to concern yourself over the minutiae.
This might be a bad example, and it might be more devil's advocate than actual curiosity, but...
Would telling an obese person to start lifting early in their weight loss efforts be similar? It might take 100lbs of weight loss before they see the results of their lifting, but we still tell them to lift? Why? Because all that work adds up over time, even if it took them 2 years to get to the point where they could see/benefit from those results.
Even if the benefits from IF are tiny... in Nov of 2021 when I finally reach my goal (thanks, Libra), I will have 3 years of tiny, incremental improvements to reap the benefits of.
I look at this from a matter of priorities. First priority is weight loss. Second priority is muscle preservation.
Nearly everyone who loses weight regrets not incorporating some manner of resistance training earlier, but I don't know if this is really possible to fully understand until you actually experience this yourself. I consider this part of the necessary learning/discipline process. Resistance training doesn't retard fat loss in any measurable manner, other than the time invested.
What is critically important, really above all else, is the discipline one gathers during this process. If IF works for you then by all means apply it.0 -
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to be clear since details/semantics/context matter...stanmann571 wrote: »but unless you're already maximizing every other factor it's only a couple percentage points.
If I'm not maximizing every other factor, do those couple of percentage points then go away? Become immeasurable in the face of other factors?
If I am maximizing other factors, do those couple of percentage points increase to several percentage points?
I mean if you are a bodybuilder trying to squeeze out that last %, lose those last few grams of fat...doing everything you can, then hey, I would give it a try to nail it down to see if it helps (it can't hurt!). But get the calories, macros, nutrition down first which are proven to be most important... and if IF helps you get there by helping you keep that deficit, then that will help but not because of the fasting itself, but the adherence and consistency part. If you really can't handle IF (like myself) and nowhere near athletic bodybuilding bodyfat levels (like myself), then there is no point in forcing it on yourself.
In the end, I'd rather not waste too much time thinking about something unless it offers more significant differences in body composition. Which to be honest, I don't even think it does....nothing I have read in research so far is convincing enough and will make me change my current eating schedule.
I don't disagree. My reason for starting this thread was 2-fold:- Simply to learn (to either confirm what I thought I knew, or to give me a reason to think differently about this).
- To help figure out where IF fits in my overall philosophy.
Point #2 gets at what you are saying.
There are 1000s of things you can do that may or may not help you succeed. So how do you choose which of those things you do or don't do? For me, it's mostly about the return on investment. I want to get the most benefit while giving the least effort (least effort meaning fighting my normal tendencies/preferences the least).
So something that requires relatively little effort but yields relatively high results is most definitely worth doing. Something that requires relatively high effort but yields relatively little result is probably worth avoiding. Then there's the stuff in between.. high effort for high results, and little effort for little results.
For me personally... maintaining a calorie deficit falls into the high effort/high reward group. It's also an unavoidable part of weight loss and the overwhelming determining factor in weight management, so it is always and will always be #1 on my list of priorities. A post-workout protein shake falls into the little effort/little results group. It requires almost no thought/effort for me to do, so the fact that the results from it are small means it is still worthwhile (for me).
IF is similar for me. Most days, it requires no thought/effort to not eat in the morning. But it also requires very little thought/effort TO eat in the mornings. If there are benefits to be gained from not eating, even if the are small, then it makes sense to me/for me to not eat.
Does that make sense?
Makes perfect sense - Pareto Principle applied to life. Focus on what matters. Return on Investment.
Pareto Principle - 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
For anyone obese the only thing that matters is CICO. Hormones and all the other intricate factors are so minimal that you simply won't see the impact. When you start getting into the low body-fat percentages and elite level performance is when you need to concern yourself over the minutiae.
This might be a bad example, and it might be more devil's advocate than actual curiosity, but...
Would telling an obese person to start lifting early in their weight loss efforts be similar? It might take 100lbs of weight loss before they see the results of their lifting, but we still tell them to lift? Why? Because all that work adds up over time, even if it took them 2 years to get to the point where they could see/benefit from those results.
Even if the benefits from IF are tiny... in Nov of 2021 when I finally reach my goal (thanks, Libra), I will have 3 years of tiny, incremental improvements to reap the benefits of.
This is assuming there's a benefit, which again I'd like to see what you are relying on.
But I do think there's a difference.
Weight training we know is beneficial for (a) health, and (b) maintaining muscle when losing weight.
That it might be small (and I'm not sure how small it really is, vs. doing nothing) doesn't make it non existent. And not doing it is a real harm.
With IF, you are talking about the difference between gains from weight training and eating enough protein, etc. vs. some assumed added benefit from IF. That you might not progress quite as fast doesn't make the absence of it a real harm as with the other situation.0 -
That's a fair point... the known advantages of lifting vs the only suspected (and even that might be overstated) benefits of IF.
But what harm comes from not lifting? Reduced muscle preservation during weight loss, or is there more to it?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions