Intermittent Fasting, yae or nay?

lithezebra wrote: »

Intermittent fasting is one of the things you can do to promote the formation of new brain cells.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sandrine_thuret_you_can_grow_new_brain_cells_here_s_how?language=en

On top of this, Autophagy activity in the body (our bodies natural cellular repair/breakdown/maintenance crew) is dramatically increased, as well as Human Growth Hormone release, mitochondria biogensis, improved insulin sensitivity and more efficient fat utilization in the body.*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21106691
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622429/
http://www.anabolicmen.com/5-scientifically-proven-health-benefits-of-intermittent-fasting/


*More efficient fat utilization does NOT mean it can break the laws of thermodynamics... if you need to lose weight/fat mass, CICO still applies.

I've tried this a dozen times before but gave it another go starting last week and for whatever reason despite usually being hungry pretty constantly it's been pretty comfortable not eating until 12. And between meals it's been pretty stress free. I'm not sure how long this control is going to last, but I really hope it does. Has anyone else failed at this before but then inexplicably found it just sticks? I'd like to know if that is the case with anyone else and if it has worked long term. I'm not utterly strict with it, I go off the concept of breakfast at lunch time, a big meal post workout and a moderate meal anytime at night, not necessarily within an eight hour window. I also don't adhere to any rules on keeping pre and post workout meals low fat. I had a full length subway the other day with cheese, that definitely wasn't low fat. I'm tracking macros until I (hopefully) get down to about 12% BF but after I think I could do this for adding muscle simply by eating the type of meals I'm getting used to on this and adding in a moderate sized meal at a more traditional breakfast time. Obviously that wouldn't be IF, but it'd be using what I've learned from IF somewhat.

I had lost about 50 pounds eating 5 to 6 small meals a day then I got stuck. I switched it up lately and have seen great success with eating an extremely small breakfast (under 100 calories) a larger lunch and an medium sized dinner. I've since been able to start losing again and have reached my lowest weight ever. You just have to play around and see what's right for you.

One, I highly doubt past a certain age your Bain "creates new cells". Ridiculous and not logical. The hgh, insulin etc would make sense because you are starving your body therefore it's having to adapt. Makes sense, doesn't mean it's healthy to do that on a daily basis. I think fasting for a day every 3-4 months is probably good for that purpose. However, your body requires energy.. After you've been asleep or a heavy workout your metabolism goes into a catabolic state where it is breaking down itself to provide energy to function. Do you lose some fat? Sure, but you also lose muscle mass.. Which requires energy (carbs>amino acids+protein>stored energy - what you people call fat). Therefore will it work.. Sure. Is it healthy? Probably not every day. Breakfast, or immediately following a workout you need to replenish glycogen in the body, which causes insulin spike then shuttles all the nutrients to the proper area. You just have to watch how much you eat, what you eat, and when. Fasting is a lazy way to do this. Not the most efficient, or most beneficial. Everyone has their own way. I believe it over complicates the simplicity of what a healthy lifestyle program involves.

IF is so far making things simpler for me, not complicated. What was complicated was the stress of planning out so many different meals. For losing weight, IF is simple for me because I can eat meals that are of a size that is filling to me rather than tediously downsize everything to a point where it may as well have been nothing.

dwd9191 wrote: »

Fasting is a lazy way to do this. Not the most efficient, or most beneficial. Everyone has their own way. I believe it over complicates the simplicity of what a healthy lifestyle program involves.

While I will cop to lazy, my use of IF is not part of my lazy ways. Trying to eat 5-6 times a day on not that many calories is more complicated for me. IF is a preference. Not a character flaw.

Yea for some, nay for others. It's a calorie management tool, just like finding your macro sweet spot that makes dieting easier for you. And just like macros, meal timing/number is personal. Different people respond to different strategies. If you find it makes dieting easier, then yea. If it makes dieting feel like a struggle, no need to be stubborn and make things harder for yourself, just try something else until you find something that works.

alypri wrote: »

gia07 wrote: »

Intermittent fasting is not to loose weight. It is just an eating schedule.

For example, you just put off your "break fast" till later in the morning and then eat your "break fast" and all the rest of your calories up to a point in the day, like ending food intake at 6:00 .p.m. You start at 11:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m.

I basically have been eating like this all my life and found that it has name. And I always always exercise fasted.

This. It still comes down to calories in vs. calories out. I personally prefer lunch, supper and a snack between if needed. If I eat in the morning, I just end up eating all day long and never seem to get full then go over calories.

Exactly. Everyone's different. For me, if I don't have something in the morning, I get super hungry and a blood sugar drop around lunch. So I have a fiber brownie in the morning. Same thing every morning, but it's extra fiber that I need and such a low calorie amount I'm not overdoing it. And just enough to last me to lunch.

sanrocha8 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

A lazy way that overcomplicates things? What?

Lol same thought here.

Yeah, I scratched my head too.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415001865

Recent findings indicate that meal timing is crucial, with both intermittent fasting and adjusted diurnal rhythm of feeding improving health and function, in the absence of changes in overall intake. Lowered intake of particular nutrients rather than of overall calories is also key, with protein and specific amino acids playing prominent roles. Nutritional modulation of the microbiome can also be important, and there are long-term, including inter-generational, effects of diet.

The metabolic, molecular, and cellular mechanisms that mediate both improvement in health during aging to diet and genetic variation in the response to diet are being identified. These new findings are opening the way to specific dietary and pharmacological interventions to recapture the full potential benefits of dietary restriction, which humans can find difficult to maintain voluntarily.

The drug companies are looking for a drug that can get the same results that IF'ers are getting.

Like a few others, 16:8 is basically my natural eating pattern. I've never been a big breakfast eater and I prefer to save my calories for lunch and (a big) dinner. The one time I went off this pattern and started eating breakfast, I found it difficult to lose because I'd still feel hungry around dinner. So I think daily IF (16:8, 20:4, or 23:1) are great for some folks who normally spread out their meals, but not for me since I've always been fat naturally eating on that schedule.

I do, however, eat on the 5:2 intermittent fasting schedule (eating at maintenance 5 days a week, 500 calories for 2), and have had great success with it. Being able to eat a little extra on gym days has been great for my overall mood, and it really has made losing these last 15 much more bearable than when I was doing a daily deficit.

As with anything, YMMV, but a lot of people find success with an IF schedule that works for them. It's definitely worth trying a few and seeing what suits.