Intermittent Fasting & weight lifting.....

So I really want to try IF. I’m just trying to make sure it can fit my lifestyle/schedule. I feel the 12pm to 8pm eating window would work best for me. However my main concern is getting in protein right after my workout. I have always been taught to preserve muscle and help build them it’s best to get in protein right after your workout. Wether is be a full meal or just a shake. My work schedule is from 11-7. I workout in the mornings from 7am to 9am. So obviously if I don’t break my fast until 12 getting in protein right after my workout won’t work. I just want to make sure I’m not working so hard in the gym to build lean muscle and not see the benefits of it. Thoughts on this? Is it that important to get in protein right away after lifting?

Replies

  • Gaygirl2120
    Gaygirl2120 Posts: 541 Member
    fernt21 wrote: »
    First a few questions about IF then answers to protein question....
    1. Are you wanting to do IF for purely weight loss purposes or are there other reasons/health benefits you are hoping to achieve?
    2. The weight loss results from IF purely come from the fact that a restricted eating window helps some individuals achieve a calorie deficit (it helps them take in less food)
    3. Will cutting out eating in the morning, especially after working out, help you take in less food overall or will it leave you hungrier later in the day resulting in either increased thoughts and rumination on food when you "can't eat" or over-eating during the periods when you "can" eat?
    4. Having one small meal after your workout won't "ruin" your efforts to lose weight, split your noontime meal into two small meals, same amount of food just spread apart.
    5. It is total protein consumption in the day that matters for muscle maintenance, not timing of eating or amount at any one given meal.
    6. It is beneficial for performance and muscle recovery to have a small meal, mix of carbs and protein, within 2 hours of working out.

    This gave me a lot to consider. Thank you so much 😊
  • natasor1
    natasor1 Posts: 271 Member
    The weight loss from IF purely DOES NOT come from the fact that a restricted eating window helps some individuals achieve a calorie deficit. Actually, this only one, and very simplistic, of numerouse benefits. Why on this channel people never discuss facts of beneficial changes in hormonal make up of dieting IF?
    The huge difference comes from prolong period of low insuline level, when our body actually, can have access to the fat storages. Also, if you fast long enough, you produce stress hormones. But fat is burnt only when stress hormones "push" it out of the fat cells. Fortunately, the nature has made quite few stress hormones to be available for creating massive energy bust from fat cells. Why not to use such a great advantage what mother nature gave us?
    The fasting period is for that- to use the fat storage for energy. Versus, eating in short by time length periods, when only the glucose or at maximum glucogen storages involved in the energy expediture. Even if you eat small meal every 2-3 hrs, you continue to keep glucose level high. So what you, actually, doing is keeping the fire with small branches of wood. You have to come back to your fire every 5 min to throw more thin brenches or your fire will die.
    On IF what you do, vertually, you put big log in your fire, let it start, and then enjoy free time. You can forget of up keeping you fire for long time.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,365 Member
    natasor1 wrote: »
    The weight loss from IF purely DOES NOT come from the fact that a restricted eating window helps some individuals achieve a calorie deficit. Actually, this only one, and very simplistic, of numerouse benefits. Why on this channel people never discuss facts of beneficial changes in hormonal make up of dieting IF?
    The huge difference comes from prolong period of low insuline level, when our body actually, can have access to the fat storages. Also, if you fast long enough, you produce stress hormones. But fat is burnt only when stress hormones "push" it out of the fat cells. Fortunately, the nature has made quite few stress hormones to be available for creating massive energy bust from fat cells. Why not to use such a great advantage what mother nature gave us?
    The fasting period is for that- to use the fat storage for energy. Versus, eating in short by time length periods, when only the glucose or at maximum glucogen storages involved in the energy expediture. Even if you eat small meal every 2-3 hrs, you continue to keep glucose level high. So what you, actually, doing is keeping the fire with small branches of wood. You have to come back to your fire every 5 min to throw more thin brenches or your fire will die.
    On IF what you do, vertually, you put big log in your fire, let it start, and then enjoy free time. You can forget of up keeping you fire for long time.

    The Fung explanation of 'insulin is the boogy man' that completely ignores several thousand years of human evolution. Your body actually prefers to use fat for fuel when you are at rest because it has time to convert the fat, saving the glucose for times when 'I gotta have energy now' occur (like chasing after a meal or running from something trying to make you it's next meal).

    Transient glucose levels are totally irrelevant - the overall calorie level determines net fat loss/gain. As long as you eat fewer calories than your body needs over a period of time (i.e. create a calorie deficit), you will lose fat stores from the body. It doesn't matter if the calories that you eat are from 10 meals a day or from 1 meal a day - if you are in an over-all deficit, you will lose fat over time.
  • natasor1
    natasor1 Posts: 271 Member
    May be burning fat 24/7 has different rate of burning? Say when you insuline level 10, it has burning just tiny bit, but mostly no fat burn. When insuline drops to 2, it burns mostly fat, may have a little gluceose in the equesion.
    Pretend, that person stay in the 10 mcg/dl al week, the fat used for energy will be minimal. Opposite, the girl or guy with insuline between 2-4 mcg/dl for the same time will burn ton of fat, and comes out winner in this competition
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,365 Member
    edited September 2020
    natasor1 wrote: »
    May be burning fat 24/7 has different rate of burning? Say when you insuline level 10, it has burning just tiny bit, but mostly no fat burn. When insuline drops to 2, it burns mostly fat, may have a little gluceose in the equesion.
    Pretend, that person stay in the 10 mcg/dl al week, the fat used for energy will be minimal. Opposite, the girl or guy with insuline between 2-4 mcg/dl for the same time will burn ton of fat, and comes out winner in this competition

    No, they will not. Insulin does not determine how much of the fat stores are used for energy - the only thing that determines how much of the fat stores are used is the amount of the deficit that the person creates thru overall calorie intake and calorie output.

    Take 2 people who both create a deficit of 3500 calories a week (a 1 pound rate of loss) - have 1 eat 5 meals a day and 1 eat 2 meals a day. At the end of the week, they will BOTH lose 1 pound of their fat stores (assuming they both stick to the deficit). The result will be the same for both people.
  • Gaygirl2120
    Gaygirl2120 Posts: 541 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    natasor1 wrote: »
    May be burning fat 24/7 has different rate of burning? Say when you insuline level 10, it has burning just tiny bit, but mostly no fat burn. When insuline drops to 2, it burns mostly fat, may have a little gluceose in the equesion.
    Pretend, that person stay in the 10 mcg/dl al week, the fat used for energy will be minimal. Opposite, the girl or guy with insuline between 2-4 mcg/dl for the same time will burn ton of fat, and comes out winner in this competition

    How about me cycling at my 16mph cruising speed and using 50% fat, 50% carbs for fuel (as verified in a sport science lab) despite drinking glucose beforehand?

    How about me sitting at rest on the exercise bike while the measuring equipment is being set up and my fat usage is providing over 90% of my body's needs?

    You really should try and educate yourself.

    I just wanted to know if it mattered if I got in protein immediately after lifting or if I could wait a few hours. I wasn’t trying to start a debate 😫
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,443 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    natasor1 wrote: »
    May be burning fat 24/7 has different rate of burning? Say when you insuline level 10, it has burning just tiny bit, but mostly no fat burn. When insuline drops to 2, it burns mostly fat, may have a little gluceose in the equesion.
    Pretend, that person stay in the 10 mcg/dl al week, the fat used for energy will be minimal. Opposite, the girl or guy with insuline between 2-4 mcg/dl for the same time will burn ton of fat, and comes out winner in this competition

    How about me cycling at my 16mph cruising speed and using 50% fat, 50% carbs for fuel (as verified in a sport science lab) despite drinking glucose beforehand?

    How about me sitting at rest on the exercise bike while the measuring equipment is being set up and my fat usage is providing over 90% of my body's needs?

    You really should try and educate yourself.

    I just wanted to know if it mattered if I got in protein immediately after lifting or if I could wait a few hours. I wasn’t trying to start a debate 😫

    Welcome to the forums. :laugh: Just ignore it, happens all the time. Take the info you need, ignore the side discussions.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    natasor1 wrote: »
    May be burning fat 24/7 has different rate of burning? Say when you insuline level 10, it has burning just tiny bit, but mostly no fat burn. When insuline drops to 2, it burns mostly fat, may have a little gluceose in the equesion.
    Pretend, that person stay in the 10 mcg/dl al week, the fat used for energy will be minimal. Opposite, the girl or guy with insuline between 2-4 mcg/dl for the same time will burn ton of fat, and comes out winner in this competition

    How about me cycling at my 16mph cruising speed and using 50% fat, 50% carbs for fuel (as verified in a sport science lab) despite drinking glucose beforehand?

    How about me sitting at rest on the exercise bike while the measuring equipment is being set up and my fat usage is providing over 90% of my body's needs?

    You really should try and educate yourself.

    I just wanted to know if it mattered if I got in protein immediately after lifting or if I could wait a few hours. I wasn’t trying to start a debate 😫

    Sorry but the post I responded to was full of complete cobblers and misleading if left unchallenged.

    To answer your protein question - a sufficient daily intake has far more significance than timing. There may be some very hard to quantify benefits in timing protein around training but probably of less significance than adherence, training program and energy levels....

    Timing becomes more important when you don't have a sufficient daily intake but better to avoid the problem in the first place rather than Band-Aid a solution.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    natasor1 wrote: »
    May be burning fat 24/7 has different rate of burning? Say when you insuline level 10, it has burning just tiny bit, but mostly no fat burn. When insuline drops to 2, it burns mostly fat, may have a little gluceose in the equesion.
    Pretend, that person stay in the 10 mcg/dl al week, the fat used for energy will be minimal. Opposite, the girl or guy with insuline between 2-4 mcg/dl for the same time will burn ton of fat, and comes out winner in this competition

    When insulin is up fat release from fat cells is stopped.
    You still burn fat that is already in blood and gotten from food eaten. That doesn't stop.

    When insulin is up your glucose in blood is being shuttled off to liver and muscle stores first, some as energy use right then as required by level of activity.

    In a diet those stores are rarely totally filled, therefore your insulin drops and you are back to fat release and main burning mode sooner than you would be not in a diet.

    So no diet insulin stays up say 3 hours then drops back down to fat release and main burn mode, perhaps even a chance of excess carbs and it's converted to fat (research shows this is much less frequent than imagined).

    So in a diet insulin stays up say 2 hours now then drops back down, and back to fat release and burn mode.

    Your rate of burning is totally determined by your rate of activity, not where insulin is.
    And research has shown even that can be overcome by exercise causing more fat burn than elevated insulin would normally allow.

    In your scenario - how do you imagine your insulin levels are staying elevated constantly all day long causing the effect you think happens?
    You are aware if insulin stayed up your blood sugar would be tanked and your body would be have way bigger problems than fat/weight loss on it's hands.
  • natasor1
    natasor1 Posts: 271 Member
    In individuals with insuline resistance, it happens exactly like this: 2-3 hrs after meal their sugar still high with INSULIN HIGH also. You describe how in healthy ( means healthy metabolism) people it works. Uhfortunately, USA health organizations suspect that only about 10% of population in USA have healthy metabolism, meaning the 9()% have problems with insulin resistance. What happens with people living with high level of insulin constantly, their attemt to drop weight alwais end up with failure or weight comes back as soon as they turn to calories level they used to have. Weight loss success is about 1%. Dieticians consulting people with such problem always check patient's level of insulin at fast along with the glucose level. If fasting insuline higher then 7.0 it's no way to get peoples weights down. No exercises, no diet will help them untill the dieticians manage to bring down insuline below 4.0.
    You all correct about 90% fat burning at low level activity. You just forget to mention that the fat utilizes at this point is fat stored in the muscles as tiny bubbles between the muscle fibers ready to use fuel. The main mass of body lipids storage are at the subcutenius or veceral are activated only at stress hormones reliese. Any book of physiology gives streight answer on it.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,365 Member
    natasor1 wrote: »
    In individuals with insuline resistance, it happens exactly like this: 2-3 hrs after meal their sugar still high with INSULIN HIGH also. You describe how in healthy ( means healthy metabolism) people it works. Uhfortunately, USA health organizations suspect that only about 10% of population in USA have healthy metabolism, meaning the 9()% have problems with insulin resistance. What happens with people living with high level of insulin constantly, their attemt to drop weight alwais end up with failure or weight comes back as soon as they turn to calories level they used to have. Weight loss success is about 1%. Dieticians consulting people with such problem always check patient's level of insulin at fast along with the glucose level. If fasting insuline higher then 7.0 it's no way to get peoples weights down. No exercises, no diet will help them untill the dieticians manage to bring down insuline below 4.0.
    You all correct about 90% fat burning at low level activity. You just forget to mention that the fat utilizes at this point is fat stored in the muscles as tiny bubbles between the muscle fibers ready to use fuel. The main mass of body lipids storage are at the subcutenius or veceral are activated only at stress hormones reliese. Any book of physiology gives streight answer on it.

    Please cite your sources for the insulin resistance numbers.

    Also, your statement that people cannot lose fat while having insulin resistance is wrong - it may be harder to do, but it can still be done (regardless of what their insulin numbers are).

    Weight loss success is about 1% because people go on diets, lose the weight they want to lose and then go back to their prior eating habits. And of course, if the person has lost weight (and therefor needs fewer calories to support their new weight) and goes back to the same calories they were eating before, THEY WILL GAIN WEIGHT. It has nothing to do with insulin resistance, insulin being high or anything else. It's physics and physiology. People see the weight loss and assume that everything is great and then start eating in exactly the same manner that got them fat in the first place.

    If your last statement is true, why is my stomach shrinking (losing fat) when the only special thing I am doing is controlling my calorie intake?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited September 2020
    natasor1 wrote: »
    You just forget to mention that the fat utilizes at this point is fat stored in the muscles as tiny bubbles between the muscle fibers ready to use fuel. The main mass of body lipids storage are at the subcutenius or veceral are activated only at stress hormones reliese. Any book of physiology gives streight answer on it.

    Wait - do you think you are on a Diabetes Support forum?
    Is that why you start off saying things that have no bearing to what is being talked about and then finally say you are talking about insulin resistance?

    Fat stored in muscles comes about through endurance aerobic training where the body finds it useful to have the source closer to the location using it.
    That fat isn't released for general usage since not in best spot, nor even at the start of aerobic exercise much like muscle stored glycogen.

    The fat released for general low level daily usage is exactly the fat desired to be lost.
    In fact that is actually the issue with attempting to lose that fat by exercise - it's not what is used.

    You really need to find a better source of scientific info - may I suggest read up on Lyle McDonald who provides those details.
    www.bodycomposition.com

    And don't complicate what happens for majority of people. The rates of T2D isn't that high, and even if the 10% healthy metabolism is true (source?) - it doesn't mean the other 90% are insulin resistant.
    This isn't a binary on/off switch no matter what Fung may be feeding you.
    Weight loss success for a year is at 20% for recent stats. Your referenced 1% must be referring to something else.