This is just false, mate.

Assuming we've got two identical meal-plans for two (hypothetical) identical males- where both eat, say, 2500 calories (same foods and amounts) at a 300kcal deficit (from a TDEE at 2800); one of which doing so in a 6 hour eating-window - and the other guy eating the meals freely throughout the day - there's NO research suggesting that the guy using intermittent fasting's gonna experience different weight-loss results than the other guy. What you're saying is pure bro-science (about the glycogen being depleted and that you'll start "consuming" your reserves for fuel).

The "source" you provided doesn't prove at all what you're saying. It tries to, but honestly, no way in hell should anyone take the results from that research seriously. Was it a controlled environment? Obviously not. Are you seriously gonna sit about and assume that a group who weren't fasting didn't "cheat" and eat in-between meals? They were scheduled to eat at 8am, 1pm, 8pm. Between lunch and dinner, there was a 7-hour window of non-eating. My research-critic screams "They 100% cheated and snacked during those 7 hours". Hell, even the 5 hours from 8am to 1pm? Of course they snacked during those hours.

In other words, that study's severely flawed. I wouldn't take that study seriously what-so-ever. The only thing they might have proved is what I've been saying all along.. It's easier to NOT snack while on IF. For some reason, I find it a lot easier to chug a glass of milk/snack/whatnot when I don't have a rule telling me "you can't eat during these hours" - I've found myself being way better at constricting myself from "cheating" during the fasting windows of IF.

I'm not saying "Don't do IF" - I'm actually a huge supporter of IF - and advice some of my clients to try it out. But that's primarily with the intent of eliminating snacking. There are other positive health-effects from IF -> augmented weight-loss, however, is not one of them.

link to those papers you've written on IF

he's full of shit.

you can find plenty of literature on IF, not even in conjunction with keto or carb restricted diets, showing how beneficial it is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680567/

and that's a cautionary article at that


If you wanna lose weight, restrict your calories by ~500 under maintenance, try fasting for 12-16 hours, do a little cardio 3-4 times a week. Eat healthy foods, low on the glycemic index.

Quotes from your source:

"Fasting has been shown to improve biomarkers of disease, reduce oxidative stress and preserve learning and memory functioning"
"To improve health, the goal should be to lose weight by reducing the total amount of calories consumed, suggests Freedland, rather than focusing on when those calories are consumed"

Can you quote where the author mentions that calorie-restriction through IF nets better results than the same calorie-restriction through regular eating?

I never said that "IF serves no function" - I argued that in regard to weight-loss, a 500 deficit with/without IF's gonna net the same results.

This post was edited by Galera88 on Sep 18 2018 04:08pm

did you miss my post?

Don't worry, I've got you covered:

I mean dude...

We can argue about IF all you want. Finding studies that "prove" the benefits or lack thereof for IF is always going to be messy because the control groups are all over the place. Hence the reason why it's best to just look at several studies and try to get the best information out of each. Whether IF helps directly with fat loss at a biological level or not, all articles point to the fact that it at least has some beneficial results in other aspects.

However, if you're gonna tell me I'm brosciencing...

"During fasting, animals maintain their energy balance by shifting their energy source from carbohydrates to triglycerides. However, the trigger for this switch has not yet been entirely elucidated. Here we show that a selective hepatic vagotomy slows the speed of fat consumption by attenuating sympathetic nerve-mediated lipolysis in adipose tissue. Hepatic glycogen pre-loading by the adenoviral overexpression of glycogen synthase or the transcription factor TFE3 abolished this liver–brain–adipose axis activation. Moreover, the blockade of glycolysis through the knockdown of the glycogen phosphorylase gene and the resulting elevation in the glycogen content abolished the lipolytic signal from the liver, indicating that glycogen is the key to triggering this neurocircuitry. These results demonstrate that liver glycogen shortage activates a liver–brain–adipose neural axis that has an important role in switching the fuel source from glycogen to triglycerides under prolonged fasting conditions."

Source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3753545/


This is not broscience.

I may not be a scholar, but I did my research. The body DOES switch to fuel reserves (adipose tissue triglycerides) when your liver is depleted of glycogen.


So, in short, I'm not disagreeing with you on the shady legitimacy of the IF studies when it comes to fat loss benefits specifically, but there's no denying there are health benefits. Also don't fucking tell me I'm bro sciencing, bro.

This post was edited by CMBurns on Sep 18 2018 04:39pm

our bodies didn't evolve to eat 4 meals at regular periods every day

use your brains guys

Man, you guys can't let go of this argument eh. Like a jew clutching a nickel.

we didn't evolve to use computers. doesn't mean theyre bad for us

yes it does