I didn’t eat for like 5 hours yesterday, didn’t have a chance, work and i had to go somewhere after work. Drank plenty of water and had a decent breakfast. I shiit 3 times yesterday. It’s like the Intermittent fasting helped me digest some food? (i eat like every 1 and a half to 2 hours.) I’m not sure if it was a coincidence, but i’m going to look into it as a once every few months kinda thing. Maybe not a full day but experiment with it.
Hats off to Berardi. His whole approach, or G-flux method, relies on frequent eating episodes. So to road test IF in the objective manner he has is to be applauded. It’s hard to see stalwarts like Poliquin being so flexible in their beliefs.
As someone who follows the Warrior Diet (WD), my takeaway from Berardi is that eating still has to be regulated, in terms of kcal/macros - something the WD doesn’t really endorse. WD relies on instinctive eating. However, personally, I find that unregulated approach conducive to overeating and general binge eating. Berardi offers a good way of estimating kcal input while avoiding the hassle of weights and measures.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
deadramones,
What time is your thai boxing? Martin(not Marc)'s default method is one moderate sized pre workout meal so unless that is in the morning it should be no real issue. [/quote]
Oops y on the name lol. I’ve read some more articles at the site. He does recommend a higher carb pre workout meal for cross fitters. I guess I was under the impression that most following IF trains fasted or with 10g BCAA & stims.
I train twice a day. Lifting,sprint,plyo, or aerobic conditioning 5AM(which has always been fasted even before i know about IF). Then Thai boxing 5-8pm.
My goal right now is not to so much bulk but to support my strength training. So I increase protein & carbs.
Some “thinking out loud” here. Not saying IF is ideal for putting on mass, this is coming from strictly health / longevity concerns.
I thought Berardi’s G-flux method was not so dependent on meal frequency as it was on increasing both calories in and activity (calories burned). Seems like this would lead to faster cellular turnover and that from the perspective of life extension, calories being equal, IF would be better than constant eating.
One other thing I’m just throwing out there: Not that it’s proven in humans, but there does seem to be some research indicating that IF / calorie restriction does improve glucose metabolism, increase insulin sensitivity, and increase resistance to stress (yes, straight from wikipedia, although Martin has detailed information on his site if you care to dig).
So, the idea being that chronic “stress” due to food shortage is something that your body adapts to and actually has the mechanisms to handle.
Finally, Martin does actually address the cortisol issue on his web page in the “top ten fasting myths debunked” section where he cites some examples from research conducted during Ramadan:
[b]
In one Ramadan study on rugby players, subjects lost fat and retained muscle very well. And they did despite training in a dehydrated state, without pre-workout or post-workout protein intake, and with a lower protein intake overall nonetheless. Quoting directly from the paper:
“Body mass decreased significantly and progressively over the 4-week period; fat was lost, but lean tissue was conserved…” “…Plasma urea concentrations actually decreased during Ramadan, supporting the view that there was no increase of endogenous protein metabolism to compensate for the decreased protein intake.”
In one study on intermittent fasting, the fasting group even saw “significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.” However, this study should be taken with a grain of salt as it had some flaws in study design. [/b]
Again, I’m not saying that if you want to get as big as say, Professor X, fasting will work. I’m just throwing things out there that seem to at least qualitatively address some of the concerns about increased stress. Most people would probably do better getting more sleep than worrying about going an extra 4 hours without eating.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
No, he does not address the cortisol and fasting issue. Cortisol becomes a serious issue, as I have said a few times now, when fasting through the day is chronic. By chronic, I am referring to years of this practice. MB sites acute instances and acute studies. Ramadan is only a month long, and the negative effects of chronic mild hypercortisolemia would take much longer to be seen on a blood panel or other objective measure. Once again, for acute use, IF is fine. If you plan on IF for chronic use, you would be wise to exercise caution. MB, or anyone else for that matter, have no studies or evidence to show that long term IF doesn’t lead to the adverse effects that human physiology suggests will happen. For him to say that he addressed the issue lends credence to the assertion that he doesn’t really understand the physiology or the problem he is attempting to address.
[/quote]
OK. Point taken. There are no real long term studies (years) of IF on people. However, while I’ll concede that there’s not enough data indicating any long term benefits to IF, that style of eating is more akin to the feast/famine conditions our ancestors would have evolved under.
This is why I don’t think intermittent fasting is physiologically dangerous. I will continue to experiment on myself. 
Modok, I never said there weren’t tribes or hunting parties. Just that they didn’t eat all the time. One example of an observation of a modern hunter/gatherer group:
http://huntgatherlove.com/content/dont-sleep-there-are-snakes
From the book: Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes (in case the link doesn’t post)
[quote]
The Pirahã also scoff at the idea of regular meals. They have no food preservation methods and simply eat when they have made a kill. Apparently being hungry is no obstacle to exerting themselves: “I have seen people dance for three days with only brief breaks, not hunting, not fishing, or gathering – and without stockpiled foods.” [/quote]
Also, here’s a video of a modern group of hunter/gatherers hunting down a porccupine:
Starts at around 14 minutes and then continued at about 32:30.
The narrator says (at around 33:50): “It’s their first meal for 9 hours”. So, while they may have had something to eat before leaving the village, there’s a long period of time under external stressors where they’re not eating. Seems like a pretty stressful life to me…
True, it is fun to think about. I’d imagine there were probably times of plenty as hunting/gathering was good, the population of the tribe expanded, but then as local resouces dwindled scarcity ensued and the tribe had to pack up and move to find better hunting grounds. Of course it’s all conjecture, and it’s hard to really say there was one way of living for all time before agriculture. I’m sure some tribes had to move more frequently than others depending on a host of local factors like population, proximity of other tribes, climate, terrain, herd movements, etc…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Some “thinking out loud” here. Not saying IF is ideal for putting on mass, this is coming from strictly health / longevity concerns.
I thought Berardi’s G-flux method was not so dependent on meal frequency as it was on increasing both calories in and activity (calories burned). Seems like this would lead to faster cellular turnover and that from the perspective of life extension, calories being equal, IF would be better than constant eating.
One other thing I’m just throwing out there: Not that it’s proven in humans, but there does seem to be some research indicating that IF / calorie restriction does improve glucose metabolism, increase insulin sensitivity, and increase resistance to stress (yes, straight from wikipedia, although Martin has detailed information on his site if you care to dig).
So, the idea being that chronic “stress” due to food shortage is something that your body adapts to and actually has the mechanisms to handle.
Finally, Martin does actually address the cortisol issue on his web page in the “top ten fasting myths debunked” section where he cites some examples from research conducted during Ramadan:
[b]
In one Ramadan study on rugby players, subjects lost fat and retained muscle very well. And they did despite training in a dehydrated state, without pre-workout or post-workout protein intake, and with a lower protein intake overall nonetheless. Quoting directly from the paper:
“Body mass decreased significantly and progressively over the 4-week period; fat was lost, but lean tissue was conserved…” “…Plasma urea concentrations actually decreased during Ramadan, supporting the view that there was no increase of endogenous protein metabolism to compensate for the decreased protein intake.”
In one study on intermittent fasting, the fasting group even saw “significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.” However, this study should be taken with a grain of salt as it had some flaws in study design. [/b]
Again, I’m not saying that if you want to get as big as say, Professor X, fasting will work. I’m just throwing things out there that seem to at least qualitatively address some of the concerns about increased stress. Most people would probably do better getting more sleep than worrying about going an extra 4 hours without eating.[/quote]
No, he does not address the cortisol and fasting issue. Cortisol becomes a serious issue, as I have said a few times now, when fasting through the day is chronic. By chronic, I am referring to years of this practice. MB sites acute instances and acute studies. Ramadan is only a month long, and the negative effects of chronic mild hypercortisolemia would take much longer to be seen on a blood panel or other objective measure. Once again, for acute use, IF is fine. If you plan on IF for chronic use, you would be wise to exercise caution. MB, or anyone else for that matter, have no studies or evidence to show that long term IF doesn’t lead to the adverse effects that human physiology suggests will happen. For him to say that he addressed the issue lends credence to the assertion that he doesn’t really understand the physiology or the problem he is attempting to address.
[/quote]
Not that there are adequate studies to validate this position either. I agree with the urging on getting proper blood panels to evaluate LDL levels but hopefully this sentiment is shared on the Anabolic diet, as I have definitely seen some disastrous panels after people being on that diet for years.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:
Hang on, not so fast. I’ve read Berardi’s guidebook last night, and I think it’s great and really really well-written. It also seems to outline all the drawbacks of IF (albeit slightly subtly), particularly Berkhan’s Leangains method that seems to ALWAYS get glossed over by certain fanboys.
Let me say again that I have no issue with the IF program itself - but it is NOT a silver bullet catch-all program. Definitely not. It sure has its place, but IMHO - its only for a) people who are already big as a temporary measure to get lean, b) people who definitely don’t want to get big, c) definitely not for newbs (especially skinny ones).
Notice that from Berardi’s own results:
a) He was already relatively well-developed (before pics)
b) His training throughout the IF program was LIGHT. 1 45-min upper body strength session, 1 lower body strength session, 1 30 min upper body circuit session and 10 min of sprinting. With 2 rest days (practically 4 rest days if we discount the sprinting as light fasted cardio). That’s not really a lot of volume there.
c) On his training days when he had to intake 3,200 cals - he himself stated the slight difficulty in getting that volume of food down in 8 hours.
d) He barely gained any appreciable weight on 4 weeks on leangains. 4 pounds, most of it water and the rebound effect off a severe 2-day-a-week-fasted diet.
Here’s my take on it - if you’re already an advanced lifter, you can get shredded on it and you can maintain that shredded look much easier than on one of those crazy contest prep diets. No argument for me, its probably wonderful.
But its hard to bulk on it and its ABSOLUTELY not for newbies. Berardi can get away with 2 45-min strength sessions and 1 circuit training a week because he was already advanced and had a relatively good base level of strength. Skinny newbies who struggle to lift a 30lb dumbell will never progress on this program (IMO of course).[/quote]
The thing that is really going to get overlooked is that his entire goal was to lose BODYWEIGHT to compete in track. He was not training as a bodybuilder, training to maintain/refine/add mass or training for strength gains. People will see his after picture where he is peeled at 171 and be sold, not recalling he was peeled at 191 using conventional dieting as well. IF is just a way of dieting, and isn’t appreciably better or worse than conventional dieting for fat loss results. I have expressed what I like about it, and what its drawbacks are several times. In the end, bodybuilding dieting is about compliance. If you can comply with one style over the other with no adverse effects on your outside life, no decrease in gym performance, etc then that is the diet for you.
The marketing is simply amazing to me though. Its shocking how, if you simply brand some concept, how people just lap it up. Same thing that the folks did by slapping the label “paleo” on meat and vegetables 10 years ago. “Eat your veggies”. “NO!” “But the anthropologists say cavemen ate them.” " Pass that fuckin’ delicious kale."
[/quote]
Just wanted to note that when he was doing the 16/8 daily fast LeanGains style, he was actually gaining too much weight for track and was going beyond 175 lbs (as he noted, he speculated this was due to an increase in lean mass, i.e. topped off glycogen and water stores). This is when he added in the full day fast on Sunday, in addition to the 16/8 fasting, to get himself back into the track weight of 170-175 lbs.[/quote]
PBAndy, you can’t discount the fact that he was rebounding from an extreme diet of 2 completely fasted days a week that threw his metabolism and body systems into havoc.
Plus even he admitted that most of the weight gain was water and glycogen, not muscle. My guess was if he continued doing the 16/8 method he would eventually reach a plateau where he would be able to maintain the weight but not gain.
Can people gain on LeanGains? Maybe. Is it optimal? I’m guessing not. [/quote]
The only thing I disagree with you is that you say ‘maybe’. Of course it’s possible to gain on LeanGains, in the end it comes down to calories. As to whether it’s optimal or not… that depends entirely on the person. BugAD said it best in another thread…
“As long as you can eat enough calories, you can gain weight/muscle/strength while IFing leangains style (seen it with myself and other I know). There seems to come a point (though you are no where near this) that I’ve seen with some bigger, more advanced guys I know, where they simply cannot eat enough calories in that 8 hour window to gain weight (over 5000/day).”
Even Michael Keck, a big ass, ripped ass powerlifter dude, wrote up an article for EliteFTS called the Modified Warrior Diet.
http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/nutrition/the-modified-warrior-diet/[/quote]
TBH, I have some skepticism believing you can put the actual requisite lean mass without the fat gain. Even while recomping, you usually gain some fat (albeit less than traditional bulking) for a reduced gain in lean mass.
Why not do this the smart way and do a traditional “clean” bulk and use IF to cut down the fat in 4-8 weeks? That way, not only do you optimize your muscle gain but you also use IF in the purpose it’s intended. Makes sense to me.
Btw, Michael Keck was already huge long before he went on IF.[/quote]
Good post MODOK. So let’s say someone was to do fasting for the purported health benefits, how would you go about it? One full daily fast every week (like Berardi did in the 1st month)?
NotaQuitta, with IF, the way ‘re-comping’ works is that you have higher calorie, higher carb days on days that you lift, and on days you don’t lift, you have caloric deficit and concentrate on protein/fat. This way of eating doesn’t really work for me personally since I’m lifting 5-6x week (in addition to prowler work).
Yes, I do realize Michael Keck was quite big before his fasting thing, but you don’t see his muscle just falling off. [/quote]
The WD or MWD would eliminate many of the concerns. The sunday fast/saturday cheat is basically what I have done for a long as I can just about remember. Its hard to eat on sunday after a big saturday cheat.
What you are wanting to avoid is constant, chronic straight fasting for long periods through the day…particularly during the AM hours. Reversing the LG approach to fast in the PM, eatin sparsely (but eating nonetheless) like the WD would eliminate most of the long term health concerns with IF.[/quote]
Can anyone help me understand this last sentence, please?
How would fasting (16 hours if we take the LG approach) later in the day make a difference? Surely you are still doing 8/16?
[quote]alin wrote:
How would fasting (16 hours if we take the LG approach) later in the day make a difference? Surely you are still doing 8/16?[/quote]
Most people fast for at least 8 hours anyway (while they sleep)? /Guess
[quote]alin wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
What you are wanting to avoid is constant, chronic straight fasting for long periods through the day…particularly during the AM hours. Reversing the LG approach to fast in the PM, eatin sparsely (but eating nonetheless) like the WD would eliminate most of the long term health concerns with IF.[/quote]
Can anyone help me understand this last sentence, please?
How would fasting (16 hours if we take the LG approach) later in the day make a difference? Surely you are still doing 8/16?[/quote]
Modok is hypothesizing the following:
- Cortisol is elevated in the morning naturally
- Extending the overnight fast in the AM is an added stressor to the body, increasing cortisol even more.
- Doing this long term as in years, not months (chronic) will lead to health concerns.
His solution is to start the fast in the PM instead of the AM in order to work synergystically with the natural cycle of cortisol in the body. So you’ll be asleep by the time you’re far enough into your fast where it would add stress to the body. See case 2.
Case 1:
Eat 12 - 8 PM, fast 8 PM to 12 PM - high morning cortisol + added stressor of fasting another 4 hours while awake and active.
Case 2:
Eat a little bit when you wake up, eat bigger from noon to maybe 4-6 pm and extend the fast by taking away from evening eating hours.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
[quote]alin wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
What you are wanting to avoid is constant, chronic straight fasting for long periods through the day…particularly during the AM hours. Reversing the LG approach to fast in the PM, eatin sparsely (but eating nonetheless) like the WD would eliminate most of the long term health concerns with IF.[/quote]
Can anyone help me understand this last sentence, please?
How would fasting (16 hours if we take the LG approach) later in the day make a difference? Surely you are still doing 8/16?[/quote]
Modok is hypothesizing the following:
- Cortisol is elevated in the morning naturally
- Extending the overnight fast in the AM is an added stressor to the body, increasing cortisol even more.
- Doing this long term as in years, not months (chronic) will lead to health concerns.
His solution is to start the fast in the PM instead of the AM in order to work synergystically with the natural cycle of cortisol in the body. So you’ll be asleep by the time you’re far enough into your fast where it would add stress to the body. See case 2.
Case 1:
Eat 12 - 8 PM, fast 8 PM to 12 PM - high morning cortisol + added stressor of fasting another 4 hours while awake and active.
Case 2:
Eat a little bit when you wake up, eat bigger from noon to maybe 4-6 pm and extend the fast by taking away from evening eating hours.[/quote]
I have to agree with Modok on his views(and coincidentally he is one of the few guys on this site where I agree with practically every bit of advice he gives because it’s also what I have determined to work best for me whether it’s training or diet).
Anyway after doing LG for a couple months (results were decent for fat loss, but felt detrimental effects of too much cortisol, ie., started losing strength, water retention, high insulin surge/very sleepy with last large meal etc.
I instinctively tweaked it similar to case # 2 with much better results. Protein and very low carbs with vegetables during the day and add carbs before and after my late afternoon workout. Stop eating by 6pm and hit the bed by 10-11. Works out great for me and controls my GERD at night.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Modok is hypothesizing the following:
- Cortisol is elevated in the morning naturally
- Extending the overnight fast in the AM is an added stressor to the body, increasing cortisol even more.
- Doing this long term as in years, not months (chronic) will lead to health concerns.
His solution is to start the fast in the PM instead of the AM in order to work synergystically with the natural cycle of cortisol in the body. So you’ll be asleep by the time you’re far enough into your fast where it would add stress to the body. See case 2.
Case 1:
Eat 12 - 8 PM, fast 8 PM to 12 PM - high morning cortisol + added stressor of fasting another 4 hours while awake and active.
Case 2:
Eat a little bit when you wake up, eat bigger from noon to maybe 4-6 pm and extend the fast by taking away from evening eating hours.[/quote]
elitefts article from John Keifer “Logic Does Not Apply Part 2: Breakfast”
This article explains my stance on the Cortisol issue Modok has raised in regards to IFing. And after trying Keifers methods I have to agree as I see better results now from utilising his ideas.
That was well put.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
[quote]alin wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
What you are wanting to avoid is constant, chronic straight fasting for long periods through the day…particularly during the AM hours. Reversing the LG approach to fast in the PM, eatin sparsely (but eating nonetheless) like the WD would eliminate most of the long term health concerns with IF.[/quote]
Can anyone help me understand this last sentence, please?
How would fasting (16 hours if we take the LG approach) later in the day make a difference? Surely you are still doing 8/16?[/quote]
Modok is hypothesizing the following:
- Cortisol is elevated in the morning naturally
- Extending the overnight fast in the AM is an added stressor to the body, increasing cortisol even more.
- Doing this long term as in years, not months (chronic) will lead to health concerns.
His solution is to start the fast in the PM instead of the AM in order to work synergystically with the natural cycle of cortisol in the body. So you’ll be asleep by the time you’re far enough into your fast where it would add stress to the body. See case 2.
Case 1:
Eat 12 - 8 PM, fast 8 PM to 12 PM - high morning cortisol + added stressor of fasting another 4 hours while awake and active.
Case 2:
Eat a little bit when you wake up, eat bigger from noon to maybe 4-6 pm and extend the fast by taking away from evening eating hours.[/quote]
Thank you for that. So it’s not really reversing it, as you’re NOT fasting for 16 hours. Am I right?
edit: already been said
Thanks Modok for your reply. Why would you think “fasting” for 16 hours a day (8 of which is asleep) is equal to chronic stress?
I think IF is getting a bit of an unfair kicking here. Perhaps this is due to some popular misconceptions about what it entails (and they would be correct as the term itself - Intermittent FASTING - is indeed misleading, see below).
The cortisol issues mentioned in recent posts are valid points. Research has been around for many years now showing how post-WO nutrition can be employed to negate this. No one is going to deny this. The problem is people unfamiliar with IF appear to think this is one basic example of how IF can be counter-productive. This is clearly wrong.
I can’t speak for all IF protocols but one of the basic premises of a proper IF regime is ingesting the right ingredients when necessary, e.g. around the training period. This, clearly, is not ‘fasting’. It is ‘undereating’. There is a difference.
Quality protein and carbs are encouraged around the workout period. Small snacks may also be eaten through the day. This is the undereating phase. At night most of the daily calories are ingested, hence this is the overeating phase.
I’ve included a link to Nate Miyaki below, which explains the science part of this strategy better than I can.
http://natemiyaki.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/lesson-921.pdf
[quote]JamesBrawn007 wrote:
I think IF is getting a bit of an unfair kicking here. Perhaps this is due to some popular misconceptions about what it entails (and they would be correct as the term itself - Intermittent FASTING - is indeed misleading, see below).
The cortisol issues mentioned in recent posts are valid points. Research has been around for many years now showing how post-WO nutrition can be employed to negate this. No one is going to deny this. The problem is people unfamiliar with IF appear to think this is one basic example of how IF can be counter-productive. This is clearly wrong.
I can’t speak for all IF protocols but one of the basic premises of a proper IF regime is ingesting the right ingredients when necessary, e.g. around the training period. This, clearly, is not ‘fasting’. It is ‘undereating’. There is a difference.
Quality protein and carbs are encouraged around the workout period. Small snacks may also be eaten through the day. This is the undereating phase. At night most of the daily calories are ingested, hence this is the overeating phase.
I’ve included a link to Nate Miyaki below, which explains the science part of this strategy better than I can.
http://natemiyaki.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/lesson-921.pdf[/quote]
I don’t think its getting an unfair kicking at all. The idea IN THE SHORT TERM for the majority of intermittent fastings hasn’t been discounted as a potential fat loss tool… What MODOK is quite rightly saying, is that the long term prolonged elevation of the bodies primary stress hormone will lead to problems further down the line. He is making people aware of that side of the argument, which is commonly played down or dismissed by IF practitioners.
For what its worth, I have experimented with IF and found the typical 16/8 to be highly effective but was finding having heavy symptoms of costisol elevation from day one. Having altered it to warrior diet style or even pulse fast/feast style (ingesting proteins or aminos throughout the day following a carb containing meal in the AM until the evening) resulted in favourable effects without the stress issue. I personally, would only use this as a last resort for fat loss and would only ever use it on the short term (2-3 consecutive days) due to the stress potential, and wouldn’t even consider it for mass gain.
EDIT: I’m not talking about RESTRICTING calories thought the day, thats valid and well practiced (shifting the majority of calories to a specific window - nutrient timing) but not having any at all throughout the day and especially in the AM is asking for long term stress related issues.
Some very insightful posts from MODOK (per the norm) but color me amused at the claims of ‘symptoms of hypercortisolemia’ that are subsequently (and predictably) creeping up now…