A question for the IF community !

blambo61

AnvilHead wrote: »

myfavoritealpha wrote: »

So is it really the intermittent fasting or is it the calorie deficit? In other words, does it matter if I consume 2000 calories throughout the day or whether I only consume it from noon to 8pm? I haven't found anything that proves the window adds anything more than the caloric deficit. Could anyone point me to some white papers on the subject?

It would be a simple enough experiment to do. For 8 weeks, eat 5,000 calories per day, all confined to an 8-hour eating window. Weigh at the beginning and end.

Then, for 8 weeks, eat at a reasonable, properly measured/accounted caloric deficit at whatever times you feel like eating (including right up to when you fall asleep at night). Weigh at the beginning and end.

Or we could save you the 16 weeks and tell you the outcome now - you'll gain weight in the former, lose weight in the latter.

Meal/nutrient timing is irrelevant to weight loss.

They asked if there would be a difference consuming the SAME amount of calories in a shorter eating window or spread out. Not if they ate a lot more in a shorter eating window.

jjpptt2

AnvilHead wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

myfavoritealpha wrote: »

So is it really the intermittent fasting or is it the calorie deficit? In other words, does it matter if I consume 2000 calories throughout the day or whether I only consume it from noon to 8pm? I haven't found anything that proves the window adds anything more than the caloric deficit. Could anyone point me to some white papers on the subject?

It would be a simple enough experiment to do. For 8 weeks, eat 5,000 calories per day, all confined to an 8-hour eating window. Weigh at the beginning and end.

Then, for 8 weeks, eat at a reasonable, properly measured/accounted caloric deficit at whatever times you feel like eating (including right up to when you fall asleep at night). Weigh at the beginning and end.

Or we could save you the 16 weeks and tell you the outcome now - you'll gain weight in the former, lose weight in the latter.

I understand the point you're making, but is that really what this argument is about? The last thing I want to do is minimize the impact of calorie intake as part of the IF conversation, but I also don't want to gloss over some of the finer details that so often get glossed over.

What if someone were to eat slightly below maintenance for 16 weeks, with all of those calories spread fairly evenly throughout the day. Then what if they eat the same amount, but all of those calories were consumed in a smaller IF window. let's assume training remained the same - a decent strength/lifting program done with good intensity.

Would there be any difference? Would it matter if that person were fairly well trained and reasonably lean, versus someone untrained and overweight?

Maybe I just need to accept it and change my mind/beliefs, but I feel like this is the nutrient timing conversation all over again (pre workouts, post workout shakes, that sort of thing) where everybody oversimplifies the conversation by saying nutrient timing doesn't matter, when in reality it does, just not to the same extent is other more important factors.

The point I was making directly addressed the question posed, which I quoted.

I'll defer to Alan Aragon regarding meal/nutrient timing:

so does a fairly General infographic about nutrient timing in general necessarily apply to a very specific scenario involving a very specific type of nutrient timing? Legitimate question, no snark. I'm really trying to learn here.

manderson27

Anyone interested IF may be interested in the Horizon documentary Eat, Fast, Live Longer that was shown a couple of years ago by the BBC. Dr Michael Mosley looked into the science behind IF and the potential health benefits/risks. He also tried it himself and had bloodwork and health marker tests done before and after. If I remember rightly he was very impressed with the results and ended up saying that he would continue to incorporate IF into his lifestyle.

I keep trying but find I just end up bingeing really badly and going over my calories but that is just me.

You can find the video on iplayer or youtube .

AnvilHead

jjpptt2 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

myfavoritealpha wrote: »

So is it really the intermittent fasting or is it the calorie deficit? In other words, does it matter if I consume 2000 calories throughout the day or whether I only consume it from noon to 8pm? I haven't found anything that proves the window adds anything more than the caloric deficit. Could anyone point me to some white papers on the subject?

It would be a simple enough experiment to do. For 8 weeks, eat 5,000 calories per day, all confined to an 8-hour eating window. Weigh at the beginning and end.

Then, for 8 weeks, eat at a reasonable, properly measured/accounted caloric deficit at whatever times you feel like eating (including right up to when you fall asleep at night). Weigh at the beginning and end.

Or we could save you the 16 weeks and tell you the outcome now - you'll gain weight in the former, lose weight in the latter.

I understand the point you're making, but is that really what this argument is about? The last thing I want to do is minimize the impact of calorie intake as part of the IF conversation, but I also don't want to gloss over some of the finer details that so often get glossed over.

What if someone were to eat slightly below maintenance for 16 weeks, with all of those calories spread fairly evenly throughout the day. Then what if they eat the same amount, but all of those calories were consumed in a smaller IF window. let's assume training remained the same - a decent strength/lifting program done with good intensity.

Would there be any difference? Would it matter if that person were fairly well trained and reasonably lean, versus someone untrained and overweight?

Maybe I just need to accept it and change my mind/beliefs, but I feel like this is the nutrient timing conversation all over again (pre workouts, post workout shakes, that sort of thing) where everybody oversimplifies the conversation by saying nutrient timing doesn't matter, when in reality it does, just not to the same extent is other more important factors.

The point I was making directly addressed the question posed, which I quoted.

I'll defer to Alan Aragon regarding meal/nutrient timing:

so does a fairly General infographic about nutrient timing in general necessarily apply to a very specific scenario involving a very specific type of nutrient timing? Legitimate question, no snark. I'm really trying to learn here.

Here's one meta-analysis I've seen about it: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

jjpptt2

AnvilHead wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

myfavoritealpha wrote: »

So is it really the intermittent fasting or is it the calorie deficit? In other words, does it matter if I consume 2000 calories throughout the day or whether I only consume it from noon to 8pm? I haven't found anything that proves the window adds anything more than the caloric deficit. Could anyone point me to some white papers on the subject?

It would be a simple enough experiment to do. For 8 weeks, eat 5,000 calories per day, all confined to an 8-hour eating window. Weigh at the beginning and end.

Then, for 8 weeks, eat at a reasonable, properly measured/accounted caloric deficit at whatever times you feel like eating (including right up to when you fall asleep at night). Weigh at the beginning and end.

Or we could save you the 16 weeks and tell you the outcome now - you'll gain weight in the former, lose weight in the latter.

I understand the point you're making, but is that really what this argument is about? The last thing I want to do is minimize the impact of calorie intake as part of the IF conversation, but I also don't want to gloss over some of the finer details that so often get glossed over.

What if someone were to eat slightly below maintenance for 16 weeks, with all of those calories spread fairly evenly throughout the day. Then what if they eat the same amount, but all of those calories were consumed in a smaller IF window. let's assume training remained the same - a decent strength/lifting program done with good intensity.

Would there be any difference? Would it matter if that person were fairly well trained and reasonably lean, versus someone untrained and overweight?

Maybe I just need to accept it and change my mind/beliefs, but I feel like this is the nutrient timing conversation all over again (pre workouts, post workout shakes, that sort of thing) where everybody oversimplifies the conversation by saying nutrient timing doesn't matter, when in reality it does, just not to the same extent is other more important factors.

The point I was making directly addressed the question posed, which I quoted.

I'll defer to Alan Aragon regarding meal/nutrient timing:

so does a fairly General infographic about nutrient timing in general necessarily apply to a very specific scenario involving a very specific type of nutrient timing? Legitimate question, no snark. I'm really trying to learn here.

Here's one meta-analysis I've seen about it: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

Thanks... that's helpful.