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.
Intermittent Fasting/Clean Fasting Debate
Options
Replies
-
Fasting study
and
Circadian rhythm study.
Several reputable medical research facilities have done studies showing various benefits of intermittent fasting.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I think you can find both good and bad research for anything...the 5 small meals a day way of eating, I have yet to see any research that shows that it is a better way vs another way. Regardless that would never work for me...no interest in doing that. IF worked for me because I know myself well enough to know that counting points/calories, fat grams, etc. etc. will not be sustainable and in doing IF it seemed to work for me.
Yeah, if someone tried to claim that eating five small meals a day provided unique benefits, I would be skeptical of that claim too.
Maybe a bit of a sidebar, but it depends on the context. Eric Helms has recently cited research (I think it was his own, but not sure and not at my computer right now) that for bodybuilders/people trying to maximize muscle protein synthesis, the most optimal approach is meals with 30-50g protein spaced 3-4 hours apart throughout the day.
A specialized context for very specific purposes, but evidence-based research nonetheless.
Dr. Brad Schoenfeld has the same recommendation based on his latest research for those trying to maximize muscle gain.
I may be misattributing the source, then. Or maybe they’re both recommending it from the same research.0 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Fasting study
and
Circadian rhythm study.
Several reputable medical research facilities have done studies showing various benefits of intermittent fasting.
Its a shame the first is behind paid window, but is does note that they are still researching to if the benefit is weight loss or IF related. But its also done on prediabetic men, so application might be limited.
The latter is an animal model, so while good to drive investigative studies, they rarely have carry over into human trials.13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I think you can find both good and bad research for anything...the 5 small meals a day way of eating, I have yet to see any research that shows that it is a better way vs another way. Regardless that would never work for me...no interest in doing that. IF worked for me because I know myself well enough to know that counting points/calories, fat grams, etc. etc. will not be sustainable and in doing IF it seemed to work for me.
Yeah, if someone tried to claim that eating five small meals a day provided unique benefits, I would be skeptical of that claim too.
Maybe a bit of a sidebar, but it depends on the context. Eric Helms has recently cited research (I think it was his own, but not sure and not at my computer right now) that for bodybuilders/people trying to maximize muscle protein synthesis, the most optimal approach is meals with 30-50g protein spaced 3-4 hours apart throughout the day.
A specialized context for very specific purposes, but evidence-based research nonetheless.
Dr. Brad Schoenfeld has the same recommendation based on his latest research for those trying to maximize muscle gain.
I may be misattributing the source, then. Or maybe they’re both recommending it from the same research.
They both have it, as does Alan Aragon. I think they all did the study together.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »lyssamichelle wrote: »I do not know why people claim that the IF research that has been done is garbage...how do you know??? Can you guarantee me that every bit of IF research is done by a quack???
BBC has a great documentary called the Science of Fasting.
Personally I think giving your body a rest from eating is a good thing (and I don't mean just while you are sleeping).
Honestly, I think it has to do with what people have been told to think. And a laziness at finding the truth. If someone where actually curious...like me.. they'd Google it themselves.
My doctor, who is the first one to say not to do something, said it was good. I would trust my doctor over someone on a message board lol
HAHAHAHA! Sorry..... trust your doctor on matters of nutrition? Nope.... I would trust Anvil over a doctor. Mine told me, a 400lbs 6'2-3" man to eat 1600 cals a day and exercise hard!! LOL
So what did you do then instead of what he suggested?
Admittedly, my fault for not researching proper weight loss, but I did it. Lost a kitten ton of weight! Also.... lost a kitten ton of LM. Could have saved a lot of it had I known what the heck to do.5 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Fasting study
and
Circadian rhythm study.
Several reputable medical research facilities have done studies showing various benefits of intermittent fasting.
Its a shame the first is behind paid window, but is does note that they are still researching to if the benefit is weight loss or IF related. But its also done on prediabetic men, so application might be limited.
The latter is an animal model, so while good to drive investigative studies, they rarely have carry over into human trials.
Human study
This is early days to expect huge controlled studies, but enough serious university research programs are interested in this to make it seem like it's probably not total "nonsense," as some here like to insist.
It's easy to call time restricted fasting a fad, but calorie counting was considered a fad when it was first used by overweight people looking to "reduce." Many people called it "nonsense," to do all that weighing and measuring when all one needed to do was simply quit eating so much. Now calorie counting is so accepted, no one ever asks its proponents for links to proof studies -- even though the regain from calorie restricted diets is about 95%.
7 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Fasting study
and
Circadian rhythm study.
Several reputable medical research facilities have done studies showing various benefits of intermittent fasting.
Its a shame the first is behind paid window, but is does note that they are still researching to if the benefit is weight loss or IF related. But its also done on prediabetic men, so application might be limited.
The latter is an animal model, so while good to drive investigative studies, they rarely have carry over into human trials.
A few of the sources I've found regarding IF:
Interview w/Brad Schoenfeld (one study directly referenced): https://www.dymatize-athletic-nutrition.com/en_GB/why-dymatize/blog/intermittent-fasting-fat-loss-and-better-health
Pubmed - IF equivalent, not superior for weight loss: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384657
Year-long study of 5:2 IF vs. traditional caloric restriction: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/intermittent-fasting-vs-traditional-dieting/
IF does not modulate the compensatory mechanisms activated weight loss: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561417301255
No advantage to IF over traditional caloric restriction: https://www.iifym.com/intermittent-fasting-myths-debunked/4 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »Fasting study
and
Circadian rhythm study.
Several reputable medical research facilities have done studies showing various benefits of intermittent fasting.
Its a shame the first is behind paid window, but is does note that they are still researching to if the benefit is weight loss or IF related. But its also done on prediabetic men, so application might be limited.
The latter is an animal model, so while good to drive investigative studies, they rarely have carry over into human trials.
Human study
This is early days to expect huge controlled studies, but enough serious university research programs are interested in this to make it seem like it's probably not total "nonsense," as some here like to insist.
It's easy to call time restricted fasting a fad, but calorie counting was considered a fad when it was first used by overweight people looking to "reduce." Many people called it "nonsense," to do all that weighing and measuring when all one needed to do was simply quit eating so much. Now calorie counting is so accepted, no one ever asks its proponents for links to proof studies -- even though the regain from calorie restricted diets is about 95%.
So lets define things a bit. IF isnt non sense, its many of the associated benefits that come along with the conversations. There isn't evidence to support increase fat burning, so it doesn't improve fat loss. When people equate for calories and protein, fat loss will be the same. The transient increases in HGH and Test are a response to starvation, but it doesn't mean that you maintain those level, increasing muacle gains. These are often the wild claims from many of the enthusiast. If a person does find this to be sustainable, than its fantastic. I didn't. But that is ok.
And unfortunately, that is why many of these threads get a bit crazy.11 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »Fasting study
and
Circadian rhythm study.
Several reputable medical research facilities have done studies showing various benefits of intermittent fasting.
Its a shame the first is behind paid window, but is does note that they are still researching to if the benefit is weight loss or IF related. But its also done on prediabetic men, so application might be limited.
The latter is an animal model, so while good to drive investigative studies, they rarely have carry over into human trials.
Human study
This is early days to expect huge controlled studies, but enough serious university research programs are interested in this to make it seem like it's probably not total "nonsense," as some here like to insist.
It's easy to call time restricted fasting a fad, but calorie counting was considered a fad when it was first used by overweight people looking to "reduce." Many people called it "nonsense," to do all that weighing and measuring when all one needed to do was simply quit eating so much. Now calorie counting is so accepted, no one ever asks its proponents for links to proof studies -- even though the regain from calorie restricted diets is about 95%.
The thing is, no one here is saying IF is nonsense, or putting it down for being a fad. In fact, several of us in this thread have done IF or are currently doing it. We are just suggesting it doesn't have magical powers, and if there are additional health benefits, it's premature at best to be putting them out there as fact, especially to a newbie who's just starting out.
IF is actually pretty popular here as a way for many folks to make hitting their calorie deficit easier. We often suggest people try saving calories for the times of day they are most hungry, rather than just eat when they are in the habit of standard mealtimes.14 -
...The transient increases in HGH and Test are a response to starvation, but it doesn't mean that you maintain those level, increasing muacle gains. These are often the wild claims from many of the enthusiasts...
And it’s a relevant part of the conversation that any endogenous transient increases in test and/or HGH aren’t going to amount to anything in terms of muscle gain/preservation. They’re never going to reach the supraphysical levels needed to fulfill that function - which is why bodybuilders inject exogenous test and HGH rather than just IF’ing for their gains.3 -
16:8 = skipping breakfast. No mad science there.5
-
Slowfaster wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »Fasting study
and
Circadian rhythm study.
Several reputable medical research facilities have done studies showing various benefits of intermittent fasting.
Its a shame the first is behind paid window, but is does note that they are still researching to if the benefit is weight loss or IF related. But its also done on prediabetic men, so application might be limited.
The latter is an animal model, so while good to drive investigative studies, they rarely have carry over into human trials.
Human study
This is early days to expect huge controlled studies, but enough serious university research programs are interested in this to make it seem like it's probably not total "nonsense," as some here like to insist.
It's easy to call time restricted fasting a fad, but calorie counting was considered a fad when it was first used by overweight people looking to "reduce." Many people called it "nonsense," to do all that weighing and measuring when all one needed to do was simply quit eating so much. Now calorie counting is so accepted, no one ever asks its proponents for links to proof studies -- even though the regain from calorie restricted diets is about 95%.
I don't see how the fact that university research programs are investigating widespread claims of extra benefits from IF is proof that those claims must be true. That's why you investigate. To find out if the claims are true.
If I were a prosecutor, I'd love to have you on the jury. "Well, gee, there must be something to the charges against the defendant, otherwise the judge and the lawyers wouldn't be here."13 -
Slowfaster wrote: »This is early days to expect huge controlled studies, but enough serious university research programs are interested in this to make it seem like it's probably not total "nonsense," as some here like to insist...
Make sure you're reading the comments in their proper context rather than cherry-picking them in an attempt to fit your narrative. Nobody in this thread has said that IF is nonsense - that label has been leveled against certain specific claims which have no basis in scientific fact, not IF as a whole.5 -
lyssamichelle wrote: »lyssamichelle wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lyssamichelle wrote: »What is clean fasting? That's not a phrase I've heard before...
Basically you just drink water, black coffee unsweetened tea. Anything with flavor spikes your insulin levels. Some stuff is in the gray area. Like lemon in water. As in it's completely dependent on the person. When your insulin levels are spiked your body, it stops your body from healing. It takes about 3 weeks for your body to adjust and start healing itself. This is just a super short summary though lol.
This is complete nonsense.
Actually it's science.
That word you're using... I don't think it means what you think it means.
So what, the scientific studies I've looked at are wrong?
If it came from Dr. Axe, yes. He's a well-known quack.
At first I thought she'd link to Dr F....2 -
Intermittent fasting is great! Im currently doing the 20:4 fast and it's working wonders. IF is the fastest growing fitness trend and it actually works! Above all it's free which is why there is a big backlash against it. Many weight loss companies and fitness gurus have a lot to lose because it's simple to do and you don't need to buy books or programs to do it. Cheers to a healtheir future!
It is not really a trend. It is the only normal way of eating. Everyone who sleeps at night is intermittently fasting which makes giving it a fancy term kind of dumb.
There is plenty of money to be made on selling less meals though. There are books and websites with advertising for people who are doing research. Even learning about it here gets the people who own this site money. Research into this non-phenomenon also has money involved. People are definitely getting paid.
There is also a learning curve involved. The less meals you eat the more you need to know about how to obtain proper nutrition. It could be exhausting, for instance, to eat enough meat to satisfy your protein needs each day in a 4 hour window. If you were relying on chicken and you need around 120g of protein you would need to eat 18 ounce or 1 &1/2lbs of cooked chicken. Of course you need more than just protein so eating a balanced diet intuitively may not work for everyone making logging your food that much more important.8 -
Intermittent fasting is great! Im currently doing the 20:4 fast and it's working wonders. IF is the fastest growing fitness trend and it actually works! Above all it's free which is why there is a big backlash against it. Many weight loss companies and fitness gurus have a lot to lose because it's simple to do and you don't need to buy books or programs to do it. Cheers to a healtheir future!
It works in the same manner that Paleo worked a few years ago.
But I'd caution you to get more protein, and probably more calories in your diet if you want to maintain your muscle mass. The problem I have with extended fast is that it because difficult to consistently get 1.5 to 2.2g/kg of protein.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Intermittent fasting is great! Im currently doing the 20:4 fast and it's working wonders. IF is the fastest growing fitness trend and it actually works! Above all it's free which is why there is a big backlash against it. Many weight loss companies and fitness gurus have a lot to lose because it's simple to do and you don't need to buy books or programs to do it. Cheers to a healtheir future!
IF is simply choosing when to eat. What works is if it helps you create a calorie deficit by eating less.
Exactly. I never understand this "it works!" stuff. I always ask "for what" but never get an answer. I have done IF 16/8 for years. It works if I watch calories. I have lost, gianed and maintained all while doing IF.
I think the statement about companies and fitness gurus having a lot to lose sounds like tin foil hat stuff. If it had some kind of magical weight loss properties, they'd all use it as part of their toolkit. It's not copyrighted.5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »Fasting study
and
Circadian rhythm study.
Several reputable medical research facilities have done studies showing various benefits of intermittent fasting.
Its a shame the first is behind paid window, but is does note that they are still researching to if the benefit is weight loss or IF related. But its also done on prediabetic men, so application might be limited.
The latter is an animal model, so while good to drive investigative studies, they rarely have carry over into human trials.
Human study
This is early days to expect huge controlled studies, but enough serious university research programs are interested in this to make it seem like it's probably not total "nonsense," as some here like to insist.
It's easy to call time restricted fasting a fad, but calorie counting was considered a fad when it was first used by overweight people looking to "reduce." Many people called it "nonsense," to do all that weighing and measuring when all one needed to do was simply quit eating so much. Now calorie counting is so accepted, no one ever asks its proponents for links to proof studies -- even though the regain from calorie restricted diets is about 95%.
I don't see how the fact that university research programs are investigating widespread claims of extra benefits from IF is proof that those claims must be true. That's why you investigate. To find out if the claims are true.
If I were a prosecutor, I'd love to have you on the jury. "Well, gee, there must be something to the charges against the defendant, otherwise the judge and the lawyers wouldn't be here."
If I were a judge I'd throw out your strawman arguments that assume I'm saying IF is the answer to all weight problems.
Someone above on this thread called IF nonsense. Another person above on this thread complained that the link provided by the OP wasn't done by a reputable source. A a response, I provided links of studies on IF done by universities. I didn't say the research had solid conclusions about IF just that they were good science about the subject showing some health and weight loss benefits.
I didn't say that these links were providing proof for either the defense or the prosecution -- what my links provide is a reasonable doubt that IF is entirely nonsense.
What always surprises me on this forum is the number of people who will look at a study done by a place like Harvard University and click "woo." As though the poster is certain he knows more than these scientists. It's amazing hubris, particularly by the ones who say, "We say," as though they're speaking for the whole board.
7 -
lyssamichelle wrote: »lyssamichelle wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lyssamichelle wrote: »What is clean fasting? That's not a phrase I've heard before...
Basically you just drink water, black coffee unsweetened tea. Anything with flavor spikes your insulin levels. Some stuff is in the gray area. Like lemon in water. As in it's completely dependent on the person. When your insulin levels are spiked your body, it stops your body from healing. It takes about 3 weeks for your body to adjust and start healing itself. This is just a super short summary though lol.
This is complete nonsense.
Actually it's science.
That word you're using... I don't think it means what you think it means.
So what, the scientific studies I've looked at are wrong?
If it came from Dr. Axe, yes. He's a well-known quack.
At first I thought she'd link to Dr F....
The other 4 letter F word? Can we have a vote on adding that to the kitten filter?9 -
Again - Make sure you're reading the comments in their proper context rather than cherry-picking them in an attempt to fit your narrative. Nobody in this thread has said that IF is nonsense - that label has been leveled against certain specific claims which have no basis in scientific fact, not IF as a whole.Slowfaster wrote: »Someone above on this thread called IF nonsense...
And let's look at a few quotes from that study, shall we?:Slowfaster wrote: »A a response, I provided links of studies on IF done by universities. I didn't say the research had solid conclusions about IF just that they were good science about the subject showing some health and weight loss benefits.
I didn't say that these links were providing proof for either the defense or the prosecution -- what my links provide is a reasonable doubt that IF is entirely nonsense....University of Alabama at Birmingham researchers are trying to find out whether changing a person’s eating schedule can help them lose weight and burn fat....
...The first human test of early time-restricted feeding, or eTRF, found that this meal-timing strategy reduced swings in hunger and altered fat and carbohydrate burning patterns, which may help with losing weight...
...“Eating only during a much smaller window of time than people are typically used to may help with weight loss...”
...This new research, funded by a TOS Early Career Research Grant awarded in 2014, suggests that eating a very early dinner, or even skipping dinner, may have some benefits for losing weight, although further studies need to take place to confirm that theory.
...Whether eTRF helps with long-term weight loss or improves other aspects of health is still unknown.
"trying to find out", "may", "suggests", "still unknown". Key words when reviewing research.
As a counterpoint, I linked to numerous studies/sources above - did you click the links and read them at all?
If you're talking about the Harvard Health Blog, it's because some people here understand that it is not a research portal, nor is the information there exclusively from Harvard University researchers. Much of what is published there is not peer-reviewed research, nor even actual research/studies at all. There are plenty of opinion pieces from "contributors" which are not backed by any research. Just because a doctor says it doesn't make it a "study", nor does it make it gospel. Doctor Oz is a perfect example.Slowfaster wrote: »What always surprises me on this forum is the number of people who will look at a study done by a place like Harvard University and click "woo." As though the poster is certain he knows more than these scientists. It's amazing hubris, particularly by the ones who say, "We say," as though they're speaking for the whole board.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions