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.
Please help with this argument- Intermittent fasting related
Replies
-
good information @jmf522 but 1 is unnecessary to lose weight
In a sense of CICO that's true. I think fat loss/weight loss has degrees of effectiveness depending on how extreme one takes it. You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey, personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?
But the extremes pro body builder goes to (and need to go to) are of no relevance to the general population.
Any "ordinary person" in "ordinary circumstances" in a calorie deficit will lose a majority of weight from fat to make up that energy deficit.
Question
"personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?"
Answer
Train effectively and eat at a calorie level that results in a very slow rate of weight gain with a sensible diet.10 -
good information @jmf522 but 1 is unnecessary to lose weight
In a sense of CICO that's true. I think fat loss/weight loss has degrees of effectiveness depending on how extreme one takes it. You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey, personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?
But the extremes pro body builder goes to (and need to go to) are of no relevance to the general population.
Any "ordinary person" in "ordinary circumstances" in a calorie deficit will lose a majority of weight from fat to make up that energy deficit.
Question
"personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?"
Answer
Train effectively and eat at a calorie level that results in a very slow rate of weight gain with a sensible diet.
That's pretty much exactly what I'm doing with the addition of IF. The gains are pretty slow but I'll take that if I can still see the level of definition from the end of the cut. As an average person looking to lean bulk and lose the last couple of pounds covering the lower abs (not likely during the bulk I know) I'm watching macros and ingredients quite carefully. IF is just a way of life for me now - the self discipline from it is enough of a benefit on its own.
But each to their own!1 -
good information @jmf522 but 1 is unnecessary to lose weight
In a sense of CICO that's true. I think fat loss/weight loss has degrees of effectiveness depending on how extreme one takes it. You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey, personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?
These extreme examples are why it is important to understand where you are in fitness and body fat %. A male with 30% bodyfat isn't going to experience any meaningful change by focusing on macros and may set themselves back by pushing their body too hard if attempting to mimic the behavior of someone more experienced and conditioned at <10% body fat %.6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.5 -
good information @jmf522 but 1 is unnecessary to lose weight
In a sense of CICO that's true. I think fat loss/weight loss has degrees of effectiveness depending on how extreme one takes it. You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey, personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?
What pro bodybuilders do? So take tren, clen, and DNP? Is that what you mean by they do more than just eat less? Oh heck, let's be generous and ignore chemistry and just talk about the psychology of some of them becoming shut ins to avoid having to think about all the food signals in the modern world - that going to a movie theater isn't a possibility for some of them because the 2 hour run time is too long between blending up a chicken breast.
I wouldn't look towards pro bodybuilders for anything about how to lose weight in a healthy manner. Any of them that are knowledgeable and honest know what they're doing is shortening their lifespan and that's a price they're willing to pay for doing what they love and being great at it. I don't begrudge them that. I will begrudge any of them that try to say they're promoting a healthy lifestyle if they're advocating people emulate them entirely.5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »good information @jmf522 but 1 is unnecessary to lose weight
In a sense of CICO that's true. I think fat loss/weight loss has degrees of effectiveness depending on how extreme one takes it. You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey, personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?
What pro bodybuilders do? So take tren, clen, and DNP? Is that what you mean by they do more than just eat less? Oh heck, let's be generous and ignore chemistry and just talk about the psychology of some of them becoming shut ins to avoid having to think about all the food signals in the modern world - that going to a movie theater isn't a possibility for some of them because the 2 hour run time is too long between blending up a chicken breast.
I wouldn't look towards pro bodybuilders for anything about how to lose weight in a healthy manner. Any of them that are knowledgeable and honest know what they're doing is shortening their lifespan and that's a price they're willing to pay for doing what they love and being great at it. I don't begrudge them that. I will begrudge any of them that try to say they're promoting a healthy lifestyle if they're advocating people emulate them entirely.
Who said anything about advocating people emulate pro bodybuilders? My question - was does simple CICO work for a pro bodybuilder preparing for a competition? I said:You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey
I presented 2 ends of a scale to illustrate that the 'CICO - that's it!' approach does not apply to everyone. You could quite as easily accuse me of advocating 'a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise' which is in the same sentence.
The point of the pro bodybuilder reference is that some people at the more advanced stages of the journey might need a little more than plain ol' CICO.
I don't think anyone's going to 'win' this debate, those of us doing IF and liking it and seeing results will keep doing it and enjoy the results - which is all that counts.0 -
How about CICO and paying attention to macros? Why is it always one or the other? Don't assume that people who sing the praises of CICO don't pat attention to their macros as well...6
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »good information @jmf522 but 1 is unnecessary to lose weight
In a sense of CICO that's true. I think fat loss/weight loss has degrees of effectiveness depending on how extreme one takes it. You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey, personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?
What pro bodybuilders do? So take tren, clen, and DNP? Is that what you mean by they do more than just eat less? Oh heck, let's be generous and ignore chemistry and just talk about the psychology of some of them becoming shut ins to avoid having to think about all the food signals in the modern world - that going to a movie theater isn't a possibility for some of them because the 2 hour run time is too long between blending up a chicken breast.
I wouldn't look towards pro bodybuilders for anything about how to lose weight in a healthy manner. Any of them that are knowledgeable and honest know what they're doing is shortening their lifespan and that's a price they're willing to pay for doing what they love and being great at it. I don't begrudge them that. I will begrudge any of them that try to say they're promoting a healthy lifestyle if they're advocating people emulate them entirely.
Who said anything about advocating people emulate pro bodybuilders? My question - was does simple CICO work for a pro bodybuilder preparing for a competition? I said:You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey
I presented 2 ends of a scale to illustrate that the 'CICO - that's it!' approach does not apply to everyone. You could quite as easily accuse me of advocating 'a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise' which is in the same sentence.
The point of the pro bodybuilder reference is that some people at the more advanced stages of the journey might need a little more than plain ol' CICO.
I don't think anyone's going to 'win' this debate, those of us doing IF and liking it and seeing results will keep doing it and enjoy the results - which is all that counts.
Does CICO work for them? Yes. That they do more to optimize composition doesn't change that. Even that they bring in pharmacology doesn't change that, it just alters what CI and CO are.
Absolutely if a bodybuilder is not losing weight besides water retention, it is a matter of their calorie balance.
If you want to get technical, absolutely no one loses weight because you tell them eat less than you burn. They lose it because they actually do the things that make that happen, and that is pretty complex whether you're a pro body builder or a 400 pound person.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »good information @jmf522 but 1 is unnecessary to lose weight
In a sense of CICO that's true. I think fat loss/weight loss has degrees of effectiveness depending on how extreme one takes it. You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey, personally I'm eating more than I burn to gain muscle and minimise fat gain, that takes a bit of tweaking - what's the simplified 'that's it!' recommendation for doing that?
What pro bodybuilders do? So take tren, clen, and DNP? Is that what you mean by they do more than just eat less? Oh heck, let's be generous and ignore chemistry and just talk about the psychology of some of them becoming shut ins to avoid having to think about all the food signals in the modern world - that going to a movie theater isn't a possibility for some of them because the 2 hour run time is too long between blending up a chicken breast.
I wouldn't look towards pro bodybuilders for anything about how to lose weight in a healthy manner. Any of them that are knowledgeable and honest know what they're doing is shortening their lifespan and that's a price they're willing to pay for doing what they love and being great at it. I don't begrudge them that. I will begrudge any of them that try to say they're promoting a healthy lifestyle if they're advocating people emulate them entirely.
Who said anything about advocating people emulate pro bodybuilders? My question - was does simple CICO work for a pro bodybuilder preparing for a competition? I said:You can do a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise and lose weight (not necessarily fat) or you could do what professional bodybuilders do preparing for a competition when they want to get down to 6-7% body fat. Are you going to tell a pro body builder to 'just eat less than you burn - that's it!'?
It all depends on what you want and where you are at in your journey
I presented 2 ends of a scale to illustrate that the 'CICO - that's it!' approach does not apply to everyone. You could quite as easily accuse me of advocating 'a CICO deficit with no attention to macros and no exercise' which is in the same sentence.
The point of the pro bodybuilder reference is that some people at the more advanced stages of the journey might need a little more than plain ol' CICO.
I don't think anyone's going to 'win' this debate, those of us doing IF and liking it and seeing results will keep doing it and enjoy the results - which is all that counts.
Does CICO work for them? Yes. That they do more to optimize composition doesn't change that. Even that they bring in pharmacology doesn't change that, it just alters what CI and CO are.
Absolutely if a bodybuilder is not losing weight besides water retention, it is a matter of their calorie balance.
If you want to get technical, absolutely no one loses weight because you tell them eat less than you burn. They lose it because they actually do the things that make that happen, and that is pretty complex whether you're a pro body builder or a 400 pound person.
The point is that they do more to optimize composition - that is literally the only reason for bringing up the pro bodybuilder reference. I'm glad we cleared that up. also 'actually doing things to make it happen - which is pretty complex' is what I was getting at.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
The point is that if you aren't gaining that much (in either fat or muscle), your assumption about the amount of your surplus is simply wrong.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
The point is that if you aren't gaining that much (in either fat or muscle), your assumption about the amount of your surplus is simply wrong.
I'm not assuming anything about my numbers - they are as per the kino protocol I'm following (which is very simple). I'm gaining slower because I do fasted training and fast after training including cardio on rest days. 'That's it!'0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
The point is that if you aren't gaining that much (in either fat or muscle), your assumption about the amount of your surplus is simply wrong.
I'm not assuming anything about my numbers - they are as per the kino protocol I'm following (which is very simple). I'm gaining slower because I do fasted training and fast after training including cardio on rest days. 'That's it!'
The problem is, you seem to think the fast has something to do with your gains or losses, and other than possibly restricting calories, it doesn't. Whether you gain or lose fat or muscle has nothing to do with IF and everything to do with CICO.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
The point is that if you aren't gaining that much (in either fat or muscle), your assumption about the amount of your surplus is simply wrong.
I'm not assuming anything about my numbers - they are as per the kino protocol I'm following (which is very simple). I'm gaining slower because I do fasted training and fast after training including cardio on rest days. 'That's it!'
The only way you can know if you are at a surplus or not is by results, namely how fast you gain. You asserted that you were at a significant surplus (and did not say what you based that on) and were not gaining fat, due to the magic of IF. But it turns out that your numbers indicate that you are not on such a significant surplus, so there's no basis to conclude that the results with IF are different or better than they would be without it.6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
The point is that if you aren't gaining that much (in either fat or muscle), your assumption about the amount of your surplus is simply wrong.
I'm not assuming anything about my numbers - they are as per the kino protocol I'm following (which is very simple). I'm gaining slower because I do fasted training and fast after training including cardio on rest days. 'That's it!'
The only way you can know if you are at a surplus or not is by results, namely how fast you gain. You asserted that you were at a significant surplus (and did not say what you based that on) and were not gaining fat, due to the magic of IF. But it turns out that your numbers indicate that you are not on such a significant surplus, so there's no basis to conclude that the results with IF are different or better than they would be without it.
I missed that bit, can you explain how it turns out my numbers are wrong?
0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
The point is that if you aren't gaining that much (in either fat or muscle), your assumption about the amount of your surplus is simply wrong.
I'm not assuming anything about my numbers - they are as per the kino protocol I'm following (which is very simple). I'm gaining slower because I do fasted training and fast after training including cardio on rest days. 'That's it!'
The only way you can know if you are at a surplus or not is by results, namely how fast you gain. You asserted that you were at a significant surplus (and did not say what you based that on) and were not gaining fat, due to the magic of IF. But it turns out that your numbers indicate that you are not on such a significant surplus, so there's no basis to conclude that the results with IF are different or better than they would be without it.
I missed that bit, can you explain how it turns out my numbers are wrong?
See this post:magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.
1 -
See this post:magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.
You're quoting someone else's speculation that I've got my numbers wrong? Really?
I've addressed that quote here:magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
And here:magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
The point is that if you aren't gaining that much (in either fat or muscle), your assumption about the amount of your surplus is simply wrong.
I'm not assuming anything about my numbers - they are as per the kino protocol I'm following (which is very simple). I'm gaining slower because I do fasted training and fast after training including cardio on rest days. 'That's it!'
0 -
See this post:magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.
You're quoting someone else's speculation that I've got my numbers wrong? Really?
I've addressed that quote here:magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
And here:magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're at 3 years of training and you're eating at a surplus, you almost certainly aren't gaining just muscle when gaining weight. I'll conservatively guess you're on 3 training days, so your weekly surplus is 1900 calories, if you are actually at the surplus you are claiming you are at. A pound of muscle is estimated to be 600 to 900 calories worth of storage. You also say you're losing fat stores. Even using the largest numbers for muscle, you're saying you're gaining over 2 pounds of muscle a week. Sure, that's possible, but not without endogenous chemistry.magnusthenerd wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Okay, so I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 3 and a half months, and I found it to be nothing short of miraculous. Calorie restricting does not work for me. I don’t do Keto but I don’t go overboard on carbs either. I fast super clean. Water and black coffee. That’s it.
Believe me, I have tried just about every diet in existence and nothing was working. Since starting IF 3 1/2 months ago I have lost 8.4 kg!!
I have also found that my skin is so much softer, and all the little bumps on my upper arms have disappeared.
Acid reflux has disappeared. Are used to have to sleep elevated for years, and I can now sleep flat and haven’t had a single acid reflux attack four months.
Plantar fasciitis has gone suddenly after years of suffering. This all cannot be a councidence!
I eat whatever I want in a 2 to 4 hr window and do not count calories or weigh food. I also often do 42 hr fasts. Obviously I’ll make healthy choices but I do have the old glass of wine and occasionally dessert if I feel like it. Oh and I haven’t been exercising much because of an injury. Just walking.
Read the Obesity Code by Dr Jason Fung. He explains the science behind it.
If IF works for you, then that's great, but its not a miracle, and there is a very obvious reason why it worked. You lost weight because IF helped you restrict calories. The only reason you lost weight is because you were in a calorie deficit. The benefits you noted with reduction in acid reflux and plantar fasciitis are not coincidental, they are easily explained by the fact that you lost weight. Jason Fung doesn't explain any science behind anything, he gives his own unsubstantiated claims as to why he thinks it works. He is a woo peddler to the highest degree, and he does it because it helps him to sell books.
This! So it looks like @Makatees , calorie restriction *does* work for you.
Just like every other person on the planet.
The only thing I can’t figure out was why I couldn’t lose weight while on 1200 cals doing several small meals a day. I tried tweaking it around to eat more as well, tried 1400 and 1600. I even tried 800 against MFP’s guidelines. I might track for a few days just out of interest to see how many cals I consume in a day. It’ll make an interesting comparison.
With all due respect, I absolutely refuse to believe that you couldn't lose weight on 800 calories a day, and to be honest, that was a foolish thing to even try. That is so few calories, that I would imagine that you would naturally be fasting for most of the day no matter how you tried to space those calories out. I will take it a step further. I refuse to believe you can't lose on 1200 calories a day regardless of when(or what) you eat. The fact that you seemed to jump all over the place with the amount you were eating leads me to believe that you weren't patient enough to stick with a goal long enough to see results. The amount of people on here that claim they can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day is absurd. I guarantee you these people didn't gain weight eating 1300 calories a day. I'm sure for most people their weight gain was a gradual process that took quite some time, yet when it comes to losing that weight, if people don't see results immediately, then suddenly CICO doesn't apply to them.
All I know is I have lost 9,6kg in 3.5 months and 6-8kg to goal, so who knows why I couldn’t lose before. Who cares? Not me, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. Happy days and thx for the debate! 😊
Good on you - glad you found what works and stuck to it. I don't buy the whole 'IF is just calorie restriction arguement'. I stick to my calories and macros and am still burning fat on a surplus of +500/day for training days and +100 for rest days. Lifts going up, inches on the waistline going down. I'm doing 16:8, fasted workouts and staying fasted for a good 6 hours or so after lifting.
Glad I found what works for me and I'm sticking to it
If you're losing weight, you are not in surplus, with the possible very rare exception of losing muscle and gaining fat, or some water manipulation.
Saying you're at +100 or +500 calorie surplus means you are taking in more calories than your body is using and storing them.
I'm gaining weight and hitting PRs, I know my maintenance numbers and have added bulk macros accordingly. Been doing this 3 years.
I'm doing a super clean/lean bulk with 16:8 IF. I reckon the fasted workouts and post workout fasting (with bcaa) is probably burning a bit of fat.
I'm certainly not gaining 2 lb of muscle a week - never said (or 'claimed' as you put it) that, the weight gain is actually quite slow. I'm also doing cardio/abs (fasted) on rest days and martial arts (fairly cardio intensive) 1 day a week. Also only recently switched to bulking so may be a bit of adjusting going on.
I don't think this can be so simplified with numbers, there are definitely other factors which IF certainly aims to exploit such as workout recovery in a fasted state then loading up on bulk number calories in an 8 hour window. There will probably be some fat gain in the coming months of bulking but IF will make it minimal which is why I like it and it works for me. This isn't my first IF bulk either. It works and there is social proof to show that (Leangains/Kinobody).
If it stops working for me I'll stop doing it.
You never said you were gaining 2 pounds of muscle directly, but yes, that is essentially your claim when you state your given surpluses and you state you're burning fat.
Can people do lean bulks while doing IF? Sure. Is there "social proof" (whatever that is) that IF holds some advantage in do so? No. Even calling it evidence, I don't think that there are 2 people that advocate a method means they're evidence for it being better. They're especially not evidence of it doing something different in terms of breaking CICO, which Martin himself - Leangains - would say he does not violate, that IF does not violate. Martin has maintained IF is a mental approach, he's backed off - last I had read - from many of the IF claims involving it being anything more than a psychological method for regulating eating.
No I didn't say it at all and it is not any kind of 'claim'. End of. I said That I'm burning fat on a bulk with +500/+100 and stated several reasons why including IF, fasted workouts, post workout fasting (about 6 hours), cardio+ abs (also fasted) on rest days (post fast). I also said it might not last as I've only switched to bulk from cut these last few weeks. I also said that I'm eating super clean and also I know my maintenance numbers and have been doing this a while - contrary to your claim that I've got my numbers wrong.
Social proof is people who have found success with a method and populate the communities around these methods for example the LG subreddit and the Kino Facebook groups.
The point is that if you aren't gaining that much (in either fat or muscle), your assumption about the amount of your surplus is simply wrong.
I'm not assuming anything about my numbers - they are as per the kino protocol I'm following (which is very simple). I'm gaining slower because I do fasted training and fast after training including cardio on rest days. 'That's it!'
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
I believe he is discounting this because it is not objectively factual, or at least provable. Note the error of instrumentation is ~5%, so even if this may occur it is less than 5% and beneath detection.
I can see how this notion gets traction on a macro scale, that work under fast burns more, but isn't how it works on a biochemical level. The biochemical pathways are fixed and it is irrelevant for all meaningful purposes when you eat as long as you continually fuel the pathways.
The best way to see this is monitoring the military and Olympic programs. Again - irrelevant for the average population, but meaningful for elite level athletes. The US Naval Special Warfare Experimental Medical Center experimented with this and found no change in performance, but a marked increase in dropouts from the experiment due to injury and hypothermia.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.
It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.
IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.9 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
I believe he is discounting this because it is not objectively factual, or at least provable. Note the error of instrumentation is ~5%, so even if this may occur it is less than 5% and beneath detection.
I can see how this notion gets traction on a macro scale, that work under fast burns more, but isn't how it works on a biochemical level. The biochemical pathways are fixed and it is irrelevant for all meaningful purposes when you eat as long as you continually fuel the pathways.
The best way to see this is monitoring the military and Olympic programs. Again - irrelevant for the average population, but meaningful for elite level athletes. The US Naval Special Warfare Experimental Medical Center experimented with this and found no change in performance, but a marked increase in dropouts from the experiment due to injury and hypothermia.
That's interesting, I'll look into that more. I can't discount what I'm seeing on the scale and with the tape measure and visibility of veins and abs.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.
It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.
IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.
Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.
Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.
IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.
Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.
It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.
IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.
Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.
Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.
IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.
Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
I don't say this to be rude but you have to keep saying "I didn't say this" because you don't understand rational inference. You aren't directly claiming things but they're the inescapable implications of what you are saying.
Think of the person who says the Earth isn't round, gets questioned about why they think the Earth isn't a sphere, and says "I didn't say it". Sure, they said not round but all spheres are round, so one can't avoid claiming the Earth is not round without claiming it isn't a sphere.
If you're gaining .5kg a week and actually losing ("burning") fat, you're claiming to be gaining more than .5kg of muscle a week. That's more than the rate of muscle gains a beginner can expect based on any expert I've ever read. Brad Schoenfeld says 2.5lbs (~1.2kg) a _month_, Lyle gives maybe up to 3 lb (~1.4kg) a _month_, Alan Aragon up to 1.5% bodyweight so 3lb for a 200lb (~90kg) a _month_. All for beginners. The rates are lower for intermediates with 3 years of experience.
I'm not happy to agree to disagree. I am ecstatic to change my wrong understanding to one less wrong when evidence warrants it. Someone's self perception of their fat burn is no warrant.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.
It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.
IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.
Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.
Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.
IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.
Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
You can choose to be stubborn. I do not think it is wise to do it but there is no immediate harm to it that I can see if you are enjoying how it feels and the progress you are making. Plenty of people manage to get the correct results while giving credit to the wrong source.
I will take this opportunity to share one of my favorite sayings though:
It is what you learn after you know it all that counts.11 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.
It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.
IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.
Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.
Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.
IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.
Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
I don't say this to be rude but you have to keep saying "I didn't say this" because you don't understand rational inference. You aren't directly claiming things but they're the inescapable implications of what you are saying.
Think of the person who says the Earth isn't round, gets questioned about why they think the Earth isn't a sphere, and says "I didn't say it". Sure, they said not round but all spheres are round, so one can't avoid claiming the Earth is not round without claiming it isn't a sphere.
If you're gaining .5kg a week and actually losing ("burning") fat, you're claiming to be gaining more than .5kg of muscle a week. That's more than the rate of muscle gains a beginner can expect based on any expert I've ever read. Brad Schoenfeld says 2.5lbs (~1.2kg) a _month_, Lyle gives maybe up to 3 lb (~1.4kg) a _month_, Alan Aragon up to 1.5% bodyweight so 3lb for a 200lb (~90kg) a _month_. All for beginners. The rates are lower for intermediates with 3 years of experience.
I'm not happy to agree to disagree. I am ecstatic to change my wrong understanding to one less wrong when evidence warrants it. Someone's self perception of their fat burn is no warrant.
I'm not directly or indirectly claiming anything - you are doing that on my behalf. You've broken out the maths again but to back up my claims but are now omitting the activity modifier that you use previously to 'debunk' the notion of fasted training and post training fasting having any fat burning benefits at all:What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
It looks like it's my self perception vs your speculation (which other people are citing as fact). We're going round in circles and won't reach an agreement on this. I'm happy to agree to disagree and keep doing what I'm doing until it stops working.
FWIW I'm upping the calories to bulk more but sticking with IF.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.
It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.
IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.
Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.
Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.
IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.
Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
You can choose to be stubborn. I do not think it is wise to do it but there is no immediate harm to it that I can see if you are enjoying how it feels and the progress you are making. Plenty of people manage to get the correct results while giving credit to the wrong source.
I will take this opportunity to share one of my favorite sayings though:
It is what you learn after you know it all that counts.
I'm agreeing to disagree and sticking with what works until it stops working. I like IF and it had become a way of life for me, I like the way it feels, I like the results so far - I'm not going to stop doing something that's working. I have said 'it works for me - these are the results so far'.
Never have I claimed to be a great source of knowledge or know everything. I have merely stated what I am experiencing and made a point of people mis-quoting me and putting words in my mouth and accusing me of making specific claims based on their own speculation of what they think I am probably doing.
It's strange that in an IF thread it's the detractors who are the zealous ones, you'd think it would be the other way round.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.
What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.
As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.
Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.
I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?
Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me
So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.
It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.
IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.
Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.
Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.
IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.
Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
You can choose to be stubborn. I do not think it is wise to do it but there is no immediate harm to it that I can see if you are enjoying how it feels and the progress you are making. Plenty of people manage to get the correct results while giving credit to the wrong source.
I will take this opportunity to share one of my favorite sayings though:
It is what you learn after you know it all that counts.
I'm agreeing to disagree and sticking with what works until it stops working. I like IF and it had become a way of life for me, I like the way it feels, I like the results so far - I'm not going to stop doing something that's working. I have said 'it works for me - these are the results so far'.
Never have I claimed to be a great source of knowledge or know everything. I have merely stated what I am experiencing and made a point of people mis-quoting me and putting words in my mouth and accusing me of making specific claims based on their own speculation of what they think I am probably doing.
It's strange that in an IF thread it's the detractors who are the zealous ones, you'd think it would be the other way round.
You are in a debate thread. If you do not wish to debate it then you should stop.
You said that you "refused to accept" something. That is what made me reply. I do not think that is a wise approach. I am not even prepared to say you are wrong. Perhaps a new study is coming that will prove you right. I doubt it though because we are dealing with something that has sports and performance related implications and you can bank heavily on the fact that if there was an advantage it would be well known.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions