[quote]coolusername wrote:
The thing is, although the simple act of eating only a couple hours of the day in itself may not be superior to eating every few hours given all other variables are kept the same. BUT it is logical to assume that the type of foods and amounts of those food choices will change when you limit the time in which you can eat.
This is where you have to seperate the diet changes involved with IF from the hormonal, psychological, performance changes (if there are any - and i believe there are, but I’m not even out of highschool yet so i don’t have the academics to back it up). I believe this is what you are trying to get at roygion?[/quote]
Hi, Cool,
If one has to eat in an 8-hour window where before one ate all day, it depends on the discipline of the trainee to keep some variable the same, like total calories and the macronutrients; it only makes sense to try and do that. I have some trainer friends who undertook a leangains-like approach to eating (fast 16 hours; train fasted, eat 8 hours, etc.) They lost bodyweight and got very lean but I am reasonably certain, knowing them personally, that they also took in fewer calories than before–which is, understandably, easy to do, and something a number of posters have asked about. In past, they (as with many bodybuilder types) have also gotten cut with ‘conventional’ methods but currently prefer IF. (As with any 2nd hand info, this is nothing more than anecdote so treat it as such.)
I do not know what approach is better, though I’d try to find well-controlled evidence-- when interested-- to see differences in approaches. At present there isn’t a lot of comparative evidence (studies), especially those that contain a training component, but that may change. That aside, all each of us has is our own personal experience, which is laden with observer bias–for all of us–as it must be. For ME, I would be more tempted to try CT’s approach (the timing of the ‘food’) as it does include some intake of calories in the ‘pulses,’ vice a raw fast as with other IF approaches. Plus, I am never training totally fasted (just me). But that would just be MY preference, especially as I get a bit cranky on long periods of empty stomach. I also think CT is a good trainer, and articulates instruction and ideas well. He is also a gentleman, as I have said before.
I can see arguments for why IF approaches (any sort) can be more convenient for busy people and for the convenience reasons cited.
The psychological point is a valid one, in my opinion. Whether talking routines or diets, the approach a trainee can follow with consistency may be the best for HIM, even if another approach were theoretically superior. For example, I know trainees who will train just 2x per week and if they can be convinced to come more often, they eventually do for a time, then slip, lose days, and then come even less consistently than before. (Again, just anecdote.)
This, of course, is completely separate from what ‘supplements’ to take, and there too I try to find comparative, well-controlled evidence on various protein sources and muscle synthesis, potential hypertrophy, etc. At present, there is a fairly robust amount of info available showing increased protein synthesis, and sometimes hypertrophy, from a number of sources, including some very generic, unsexy, products. All I ever say on that is to try the simpler (or less expensive)-- yet proven-- products first. But again, that is just me.
At day’s end I do not know what eating approach is ‘better,’ IF, or Thibs version of IF, or plain 'ole normal eating, etc. I can look either at what comparative research tells me from controlled studies (not much there in volume) or what I, or someone else, prefers. But one should at least try to see what evidence is available to support specific claims–of any sort and in any field.
