Martin Burkham (Leangains) Consult up for Grabs

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:

[quote]facko wrote:

This is a straight up pissing contest, and towards the last few posts it’s become increasingly hostile towards “skinny bastards”.

Do I get WAYYYY more compliments on my appearance (although this shouldn’t be THAT important)? Yes, I do. And minus the compliments, I personally feel much better about my body as of now.

I feel that I’m making a decent climb towards the 165lb-170lb mark and maintaining my leanness. That is MY goal…how does that make me a “pussy”, or bitch or skinny bastard or whatever other derogatory childish remark?

…I personally know I’m capable of gaining large amounts of weight at the expensive of TOO MUCH fat…and I know the strength levels and benchmarks I’ve attained were satisfactory to me. I don’t look at anyone else on this board who is carrying what I consider to be undesirable levels of bodyfat…and basically criticize them or tell them they suck at attaining their goals. Their goals are probably a lot different from mine.

[/quote]

This mirrors my experiences too.

This thread has gone from a cost / benefit discussion of Martins services that people use to get lean to a bunch of people defending their “bulking” methods. X did sort of derail this thread talking about bulking. I’ve also been up at 215, but never been below 10 % BF. This is my goal right now. It’s not a final goal. Probably for many of us on this site, getting lean is just a way-station on the path towards getting bigger again. I don’t see why it’s such a problem to want to “get abs”.

Geez, this is the nutrition forum, not the BB forum. You’d think we can talk about getting lean here of all places. [/quote]

You don’t seem to be following the discussion very closely at all.

Who has a problem with people getting abs?

Where are those posts at?[/quote]

LOL. Don’t you mean discussions?

yes, I guess no one has a problem with people getting abs.

From John Kiefer of EliteFTs on Eating Breakfast:

http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-part-2-breakfast/

Stacked, thanks for the link / post. I remember Martin discussing that study now (the one about the morning group losing relatively more muscle).

[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:

[quote]fd24 wrote:

[quote]solidkhalid wrote:

[quote]fd24 wrote:
But back to Martin’s clients, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THEIR GOALS WERE, A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANT THAT LEAN SKINNY LOOK.
[/quote]

Can we keep this shit off T-Nation please?

Thanks.[/quote]

At 15% bf maybe you should try to attain that lean look instead of criticizing it. Just saying. [/quote]

WTF?

Do you have some phobia about fat or something? Having 15% BF is NOT FAT. Especially if said person is carrying a large amount of lean mass. An overweight sedentary guy with baby muscles is fat. Someone 200lbs with 15% BF and 170lbs lean mass is definitely not in the same league. Heck X could probably bicep curl your body weight easily.

FWIW, I am not going to knock anyone’s goals here, but I usually maintain/bulk at around 12-15% of BF (mirror estimate). I have cut hard and dry right down to 6-8% BF, but I personally find that I feel like shit when I do that.

Sure the pictures come out a little nicer, but strength (and lifts) go down by a fair amount, recovery is slower, my sleep sucks (have to wake up a couple times through the night), calorie counting and there’s constant hunger which leads to me generally not being all that fun to be around.

Not to mention I study some martial arts through the weak and sparring while at 7% BF takes a lot out of you, especially if you get a kick to the sides.

I don’t know about you, but I’m in this game because I like lifting heavy shit, and because I like to challenge myself while looks come a distant third. Sure ripping off your shirt and showing off your six down on the beach will bring the chixxxx…but its not worth that IMO.[/quote]

No phobia of being fat because I never have or will be fat. It is often a matter of discipline, something I do not lack. My only point is that there is very little need to go to 15% bf or above, and if your 15% is a “mirror estimate” I’m willing to bet it’s a bit higher. 200lbs with 15% bf is not impressive and X curling my body weight (220lbs) proves what? I apologize that your lifts suffer so much when you diet, perhaps you don’t know how to train or diet very well? I am also sorry that you have not found a way to look good and still lift heavy shit/challenge yourself. Maybe in the future you will figure this lifting and nutrition stuff out. Good luck.

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

Here is a way to think about it that may help. Food itself is a pharmaceutical. Everything you eat, and any time you eat it, you elicit a powerful hormonal and physiological response. What you eat, when you eat it, and how many times you eat are all very important variables. Every time you introduce food, drug, or foreign object into your body, you push the closed biological system that is your body OUT of homeostasis (dynamic equilibrium for you chemistry people). Your body then spends resources in the form of energy and hormones to store and burn the food you just ingested to return your body to equilibrium. Ok, so thats a little background to get the thinking in the right plane.

Now, not only is when you eat important, but when you DON’T eat is important also. When you skip breakfast, you have no means of blunting the already high levels of cortisol floating around in your body. Cortisol is a powerful catabolic hormone which increases blood glucose, prevents bodyfat loss in stubborn areas, causes large increases in catecholamines, and takes glucose and other nutrients from your muscle cells and liver for energy. I don’t have to tell you that that isn’t good for a bodybuilder. Also, as the body is now starving for 12+ hours, it sees the event as a significant stressor, and maintains a stress response. Catecholamines are high, mineralocorticoids are high, ( which lead to water retention). Glucagon is also high, which is a good thing in a fat loss diet, but it has a tendency to run into an issue at a certain bodyfat level in dealing with the cortisol and mineralocorticoids. Puffiness and “thick skin” are often seen due to this interaction and is one reason why many folks who try IF never can seem to break through the 10% barrier. In addition, I do not believe the body can partition nutrients as efficiently. It is likely that the body will be less efficient due to the hypercortisolemia, higher blood glucose, and mild to moderate insulin resistance that would entail. More carbs would be diverted to de novo lipogenesis instead of being stored as glycogen, leading to the “flat muscle” look.

In order to look your best, you need full muscle bellies (low cortisol, timely and frequent insulin), thin skin (low mineralocorticoids), combined with a sizable portion of time each day where glucagon and the SNS does dominate to release FA for energy. What I believe is detrimental is leaving that stress response running rampant in the body through the day. If anything, if you are going to IF it makes MUCH more sense physiologically to eat the first part of the day and fast through the end. Cortisol is much lower at the end of the day, many of these concerns would be addressed. Its a tricky thing for many of us (obviously not ectos…as you can see), which is why there is all this confusion and not very many big, ripped people walking the earth.
[/quote]

It’s interesting that you actually mention becoming insulin resistant, when the buzz is that fasting is supposed to keep you insulin sensitive.

You are considering IF a stressor, but I’d be interested to know if the body adapts to a feeding schedule. Certainly in my experience hunger does. Once IÃ?¢??ve gotten used to it, I don’t get hungry until the afternoon. If the hormonal triggers for hunger adapt to short regular fasting, is it not possible cortisol does too? Martin seems to claim it does. Essentially that your body knows it isn’t starving and is going to be getting food later in the day.

It at least would seem unfair to draw conclusions from a study based on people used to eating throughout the day and then suddenly fasting outside of their normal schedule.

Thanks for taking the time to humor me, I’m not a nutritionist or a biological chemist.

For the record, I’ve had pretty good success doing it so far, but I started pretty pudgy.

According to the calipers (measuring myself) I’ve gone from 235 @26% BF to 218 @18% (as of a few days ago) which would technically be an increase in lean body mass of about 4 pounds (according to the electronic measure I went from 28 to 22%). Though like I said, some of that success could be due to starting out pretty fat and it hasn’t been exceptionally quick (8 months or so though I wasn’t IFing for several months in there). I’m not to a low enough % to know what that struggle might be like and how that may change my body chemistry.

And no I don’t want to end up with thick skin or flat muscles. Hah!
[/quote]

Its the cortisol, glucagon, and catecholamines which are responsible for the appetite suppression you are referencing at mid-day. They release glucose and fatty acids from liver, muscle, and adipose stores. That is the bodies “adaption” to going without food. As I’ve said, this is both good (weight loss) and bad (insulin resistance secondary to cortisol).

I don’t want to come off as completely negative on diets such as this. They are effective, although they come with issues that no one is talking about that you must be very aware of if you are going to do the diet for longer than a short term fat loss deal. If you don’t really care how much muscle you carry, or the “aesthetic” look of your physique and simply want to be lean, it may be just what you need.

For bulking, I do not believe it has any place and could be harmful. Take home for all this is, learn everything you can about physiology. That way, you can trouble shoot your diet, training program, etc on the fly.
[/quote]

What time frame are you referencing with short term vs. long term?

I think the biggest advantage is psychological for me anyway. It’s just plain easy to do. I feel good through the day. I’m dieting and losing fat, but it doesn’t seem like a chore or like I’m denying myself things.

I’d also point out I’m not exactly doing leangains.

And I’m also going to ride the horse till it stops working, but I do appreciate the info. I’m not that interested in getting to the sub 10% range as of now. I just mainly want to see some definition, be healthier, and maybe get my lifts into a lower weight class. I want to stop telling myself how good I’ll look in the future and start enjoying some of my hard work.

[quote]MODOK wrote:

Take home for all this is, learn everything you can about physiology. That way, you can trouble shoot your diet, training program, etc on the fly.
[/quote]

This and holy hell, a little Irish boy trying to keep up with your Bio majors is freaking hard!

MODOK thank you very much for all the excellent Info, I have learned A LOT from this discussion alone.

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]fd24 wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

Here is a way to think about it that may help. Food itself is a pharmaceutical. Everything you eat, and any time you eat it, you elicit a powerful hormonal and physiological response. What you eat, when you eat it, and how many times you eat are all very important variables. Every time you introduce food, drug, or foreign object into your body, you push the closed biological system that is your body OUT of homeostasis (dynamic equilibrium for you chemistry people). Your body then spends resources in the form of energy and hormones to store and burn the food you just ingested to return your body to equilibrium. Ok, so thats a little background to get the thinking in the right plane.

Now, not only is when you eat important, but when you DON’T eat is important also. When you skip breakfast, you have no means of blunting the already high levels of cortisol floating around in your body. Cortisol is a powerful catabolic hormone which increases blood glucose, prevents bodyfat loss in stubborn areas, causes large increases in catecholamines, and takes glucose and other nutrients from your muscle cells and liver for energy. I don’t have to tell you that that isn’t good for a bodybuilder. Also, as the body is now starving for 12+ hours, it sees the event as a significant stressor, and maintains a stress response. Catecholamines are high, mineralocorticoids are high, ( which lead to water retention). Glucagon is also high, which is a good thing in a fat loss diet, but it has a tendency to run into an issue at a certain bodyfat level in dealing with the cortisol and mineralocorticoids. Puffiness and “thick skin” are often seen due to this interaction and is one reason why many folks who try IF never can seem to break through the 10% barrier. In addition, I do not believe the body can partition nutrients as efficiently. It is likely that the body will be less efficient due to the hypercortisolemia, higher blood glucose, and mild to moderate insulin resistance that would entail. More carbs would be diverted to de novo lipogenesis instead of being stored as glycogen, leading to the “flat muscle” look.

In order to look your best, you need full muscle bellies (low cortisol, timely and frequent insulin), thin skin (low mineralocorticoids), combined with a sizable portion of time each day where glucagon and the SNS does dominate to release FA for energy. What I believe is detrimental is leaving that stress response running rampant in the body through the day. If anything, if you are going to IF it makes MUCH more sense physiologically to eat the first part of the day and fast through the end. Cortisol is much lower at the end of the day, many of these concerns would be addressed. Its a tricky thing for many of us (obviously not ectos…as you can see), which is why there is all this confusion and not very many big, ripped people walking the earth.
[/quote]

Interesting. So Modok, what about fasted cardio? What’s the difference between say, 12 hours of no food, waking up and doing fasted cardio, then eating, vs just extending your overnight fast by 4 or 5 hours (16-17 total hours) if all you do is sit at a desk all day? In both case, you have stressors to the body (cardio vs no food for 4 hrs). Isn’t that essentially the same?

It also seems by your comment on cortisol, that IF may be better implemented as a night-time fast (eg 4 PM to 8 AM vs 8 PM to 12 PM).

Interested to hear your thoughts on those two comments. Thanks!
[/quote]

You are extending your fast by 4-5 hours in the latter scenario and only 1 hour in the former. Once you eat, cortisol levels begin to drop, and your bodies parasympathetic NS takes over.

Yes, I mentioned in the long post that fasting through dinner would be much better than fasting through breakfast when taking these things into account.
[/quote]

I think we can all agree that with any diet there may be some drawbacks. Cortisol may be an issue but then again high blood glucose levels can certainly be an issue in the 6-8 meal a day plan. I think the key is finding which one’s benefits outweigh the drawbacks. [/quote]

High blood glucose levels are certainly much more of an issue on an IF plan where you skip breakfast. Cortisol elevates blood glucose tremendously. Have you ever taken prednisone for an infection to reduce inflammation? Hyperglycemia, weight gain, and increased bodyfat are side effects.
[/quote]

I actually had my cortisol levels measured recently, once during regular feeding and one now that I do IF (or my own slight variation). There was no real difference in my cortisol numbers, so for me at least this is not a problem. As far as blood glucose I was under the impression that food consumption will result in insulin-mediated suppression of FFAs while increasing blood glucose, and this will favor carbohydrate oxidation. Doing this 8 times a day undoubtedly leads to a higher blood glucose level than say one meal or “feeding period” with carbs.

I believe TC wrote an article on this recently. I think another problem we are having is that there are different approaches to IF. I guess I only speak about what I personally read about and employ. I think I am going to start playing with Carbless post workout as well to increase insulin sensitivity and insulin responsiveness. Depriving the muscles of glycogen for an extended period of time should increase insulin sensitivity until you super-compensation and refeed.

[quote]solidkhalid wrote:

[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:

[quote]fd24 wrote:

[quote]solidkhalid wrote:

[quote]fd24 wrote:
But back to Martin’s clients, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THEIR GOALS WERE, A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANT THAT LEAN SKINNY LOOK.
[/quote]

Can we keep this shit off T-Nation please?

Thanks.[/quote]

At 15% bf maybe you should try to attain that lean look instead of criticizing it. Just saying. [/quote]

WTF?

Do you have some phobia about fat or something? Having 15% BF is NOT FAT. Especially if said person is carrying a large amount of lean mass. An overweight sedentary guy with baby muscles is fat. Someone 200lbs with 15% BF and 170lbs lean mass is definitely not in the same league. Heck X could probably bicep curl your body weight easily.

FWIW, I am not going to knock anyone’s goals here, but I usually maintain/bulk at around 12-15% of BF (mirror estimate). I have cut hard and dry right down to 6-8% BF, but I personally find that I feel like shit when I do that.

Sure the pictures come out a little nicer, but strength (and lifts) go down by a fair amount, recovery is slower, my sleep sucks (have to wake up a couple times through the night), calorie counting and there’s constant hunger which leads to me generally not being all that fun to be around.

Not to mention I study some martial arts through the weak and sparring while at 7% BF takes a lot out of you, especially if you get a kick to the sides.

I don’t know about you, but I’m in this game because I like lifting heavy shit, and because I like to challenge myself while looks come a distant third. Sure ripping off your shirt and showing off your six down on the beach will bring the chixxxx…but its not worth that IMO.[/quote]

I can second a lot of what was said here… I feel much stronger, healthier, better overall now then I was when I was sub 10% BF.

My BF increase came from an excess of quality food choices. I didn’t binge on cookies, sodas, ice cream etc… in the hope of that shit building muscle.

You jump on Prof X for saying he doesn’t think people could have different goals, but then tell me what I should be doing?

I hate hypocrites.[/quote]

I am glad you feel better now than before. We all lift to feel good and because we enjoy it, so that is important. I personally feel better at a lower body fat and can’t maintain strength that way as well. And I did not intend to tell you what to do in terms of your physique, my main point was that you were jumping into a pretty detailed and complicated discussion when you may be out of your league.

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Lonnie Lowery’s Take from “Temporal Nutrition”

Diurnal Endocrine Rhythms Affect Us
(at least for those of us awake during daylight hours):

We can’t escape the clock, as hormones and blood constituents rise and fall throughout the day, as does our glucose tolerance. In fact, glucose tolerance can become so poor in the evening, researchers have related it to Type II diabetes!(13)

One reason is that glucocorticoids (cortisol) eventually induce glucose intolerance, insulin resistance, and higher free fatty acids (FFA) in the bloodstream.(37) And eating fatty meals early in the day doesn’t help, either. FFA increases over the course of a day can themselves have a relationship with poorer carbohydrate metabolism.(9) Clearly then, breakfast ? and a “second breakfast” consisting of low-fat, higher carbohydrate feedings are important. It’s at this time of day that FFA concentrations are lower and our muscle’s ability to take up blood glucose is best. Carbs at nighttime just aren’t metabolized as well ? at least in non-obese persons.(13, 19, 22, 38)

This effect is so large as to probably be discernable even with a home test glucometer. Diurnal hormonal rhythms, reduced (non-exercise) muscular activity and meal selections are a few reasons why.[/quote]

So, carb back loading is bad too?

Don’t carbs become more efficient after exercise too? increased insulin sensitivity. I’ve even read that muscles can even utilize carbs post workout without insulin.

Were these studies you referenced on individuals who trained?

Edit: that was Kiefer too where I read that: http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/nutrition/carb-back-loading/

[quote]MODOK wrote:

If you aren’t a bodybuilder, it isn’t a big deal. Convenience is 90% of adherence in a diet, so if you stick with it better I’d go for it. I would keep an eye on things like fasting blood glucose, TG, and blood pressure periodically though to make sure things are staying WNL.
[/quote]

So, you are recommending I schedule a doctors appointment?

I IF, so I guess I’m biased in that I try to look for people who have had success with it. Alot of the old BOI members seemed to have used the methd effectively, and don’t have the ‘stringy-look’ that MB and his clients have. I feel maybe that look may have to do with lack of hypertrophy work that Martin or his clients do.

They simply want to be lean and strong. If you take a look at MB’s suggest routines, they are usually low reps, low frequency (3x a week in the gym), and low volume, just high intensity. Not trying to sound like a know it all, just maybe these guys dont look like BB’ers because they aren’t???

Not good with posting vids, but this dude is a guy MB helped, and though he’s not technically a BB’er (he does those athletic shows that I think that Exile Swede guy use to do), but he does incorporate more hypertrophic work then most of Martin’s clients, and he def has the BB’er look, if I do say so my self…

Out of curiosity MODOK, what is your educational background? You seem to be very well versed in these topics.

[quote]MODOK wrote:

I don’t want to come off as completely negative on diets such as this. They are effective, although they come with issues that no one is talking about that you must be very aware of if you are going to do the diet for longer than a short term fat loss deal. If you don’t really care how much muscle you carry, or the “aesthetic” look of your physique and simply want to be lean, it may be just what you need.

For bulking, I do not believe it has any place and could be harmful. Take home for all this is, learn everything you can about physiology. That way, you can trouble shoot your diet, training program, etc on the fly.
[/quote]

Like this post. Point taken about how IF may influence appearance and totally agree about having to trouble-shoot on the fly. Diet is one of those things that is going to be highly individualized. Just because some have seen good results on IF, doesn’t mean everyone can successfully use it.

I think IF for someone like myself and my goals is useful. I also agree with the hypothesis that everyone probably has different amounts of muscle that their body will “naturally” carry, beyond which you need to really push your body to carry more (as X has mentioned he has had to force his body to go well over 200 lbs). If I were one of those people I’d be hesitant to incorporate IF for bulking or cutting. I’ve never been into that realm of body weight and I’d simply take Professor X’s word on that.

However, that being said, I believe it was just before the MAG-10 pulse feast concept was released, that CT not only said he was eating this way, but specifically mentioned Martin Berkhan and how he had adapted the concepts from his web site.

[quote]ds1973 wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

I don’t want to come off as completely negative on diets such as this. They are effective, although they come with issues that no one is talking about that you must be very aware of if you are going to do the diet for longer than a short term fat loss deal. If you don’t really care how much muscle you carry, or the “aesthetic” look of your physique and simply want to be lean, it may be just what you need.

For bulking, I do not believe it has any place and could be harmful. Take home for all this is, learn everything you can about physiology. That way, you can trouble shoot your diet, training program, etc on the fly.
[/quote]

Like this post. Point taken about how IF may influence appearance and totally agree about having to trouble-shoot on the fly. Diet is one of those things that is going to be highly individualized. Just because some have seen good results on IF, doesn’t mean everyone can successfully use it.

I think IF for someone like myself and my goals is useful. I also agree with the hypothesis that everyone probably has different amounts of muscle that their body will “naturally” carry, beyond which you need to really push your body to carry more (as X has mentioned he has had to force his body to go well over 200 lbs). If I were one of those people I’d be hesitant to incorporate IF for bulking or cutting. I’ve never been into that realm of body weight and I’d simply take Professor X’s word on that.

However, that being said, I believe it was just before the MAG-10 pulse feast concept was released, that CT not only said he was eating this way, but specifically mentioned Martin Berkhan and how he had adapted the concepts from his web site.

[/quote]

While drinking MAG-10 may not be much as far as being filling, drinking it does not constitute a “fast” either. I drink the stuff all day. I take that into consideration…because I have tried dieting like that with just protein shakes before and the results were not favorable.

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]shffl wrote:
Out of curiosity MODOK, what is your educational background? You seem to be very well versed in these topics.[/quote]

PharmD/PhD Pharmacology[/quote]

Nice! I was actually an aspiring pharmacist at one point but being first of my family to go to college I wasn’t quite sure of how I should approach lol

[quote]TommyGunz32 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
roybot, ok demand and supply. Martin can only take on so many clients. A high price is one way of being sure that the client you take on is serious about getting results and following the program to the letter. I bet with in-person clients, the cost is not as high. [/quote]

^ That first line suggests you haven’t read my post. You’ve gone back to ‘demand’ again. There is no ‘demand’ because there aren’t enough people on that list who can afford the fees. If there were, the fees would be going up relative to that increased demand. The list represents ‘interest’, not ‘demand’.

If I’m wrong, there should be scores of testimonials from these huge numbers of private clients. Where are they?

We’re not talking about in-person clients, though. We’re talking about the fees relating to the people on that waiting list. Again, as I said in that last post, he’s not going to have an eight month-long waiting list where most people are going to take it to the next level and pay for his services.

The price is set by the few clients wealthy enough to afford that price. Which in itself is no guarantee of commitment or success unless you can’t afford to lose that money. They can because they’ve accepted that price as a reasonable one by paying it. The exclusivity comes from those rich clients pushing everyone else out of the running, not from who is most likely to succeed.

[/quote]

I don’t really think it has anything to do with the income of his client’s. I don’t know anything about this guy but I assume he is at capacity in terms of client’s he can manage in his work week 60-70 hours or something. So if he is going to take on new client’s he is going to make it worth his time and charge higher rates and if people decline like the OP then it is no skin off his back cause he already has all the client’s he needs [/quote]

And that depends on the income of his clients…

[quote]Scott M wrote:
So…

has anyone on this board hired Martin before and could share their experiences?[/quote]

[quote]ds1973 wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

I don’t want to come off as completely negative on diets such as this. They are effective, although they come with issues that no one is talking about that you must be very aware of if you are going to do the diet for longer than a short term fat loss deal. If you don’t really care how much muscle you carry, or the “aesthetic” look of your physique and simply want to be lean, it may be just what you need.

For bulking, I do not believe it has any place and could be harmful. Take home for all this is, learn everything you can about physiology. That way, you can trouble shoot your diet, training program, etc on the fly.
[/quote]

Like this post. Point taken about how IF may influence appearance and totally agree about having to trouble-shoot on the fly. Diet is one of those things that is going to be highly individualized. Just because some have seen good results on IF, doesn’t mean everyone can successfully use it.

I think IF for someone like myself and my goals is useful. I also agree with the hypothesis that everyone probably has different amounts of muscle that their body will “naturally” carry, beyond which you need to really push your body to carry more (as X has mentioned he has had to force his body to go well over 200 lbs). If I were one of those people I’d be hesitant to incorporate IF for bulking or cutting. I’ve never been into that realm of body weight and I’d simply take Professor X’s word on that.

However, that being said, I believe it was just before the MAG-10 pulse feast concept was released, that CT not only said he was eating this way, but specifically mentioned Martin Berkhan and how he had adapted the concepts from his web site.

[/quote]

This is interesting because I have heard from a few really good researchers/science guys, like Mat LaLonde, who say people who are metabolically derranged should not experiment with IF, nor people who have bad sleep habits and possibly those who consistantly make bad food choices. I dont remember the qoute exactly. But I would say for leaning out purposes that IF is great at certain correlating percentages of bodyfat. If used for gaining it really doesnt come down to IF as a science but meal timing. Most people I have seen plan IF in the same manner where its not so much IF but “just waiting to eat a big meal until after your workout.” That is somewhat of the essence behind the program.

I know i will get flamed for this but i was young and dumb and would visit bb.com gasp i know but i corrected. but i did find one log there that i still follow. Its Pbatemen2. I suggest anyone who can stand to, to go check out his log. He IF’s trainns with only BCAAs and waits 5hrs or so to even eat a meal. He is 205 (i think) and somewhere around 6 or 7% body fat. Strong lean and pretty big. This is just to show that some things can work even if the science may say it cant. Let the flaming commence.

Also i did try IF and was loving it up until Indigo-3G came out. Just love the big meals and how easy it is. But i am always happy to learn more from MODOK and others who know their stuff. I just dont understand how there can be so much information that seems to condrict itself at every turn. Dman confusing. Good discussion on here though