[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Damn dude, nothing to eat for 8 hours. IMO that’s too long and your gains could have been better.[/quote]
Seriously? 10 lbs of mass gained while maintaining 12% bf works out to be about 8 lbs of lean weight gained in TWELVE WEEKS without having to get fat to gain it. Without steroids (assuming). That’s not superb? Tell us, what “could have been better”. Better yet, show us how your way has worked better for you.
[quote]silverhydra wrote:
I’m not sure why I am going to do this, but I guess I’ll post my experiences with IF this summer. (If you want to read, go right ahead; if you are more interested in seeing a troll who seems to only have 2 pictures in his profile which I can swear were taken from other sources on the internet then just ignore me)
Over the past 3 months I have gone from approximately 195 (at around 10-12% BF) to 205 (roughly the same body fat percentage) on an IF system of eating.
I would wake at 4 am so I can do some incline walking before I drive off to my job in a warehouse (labour job) until 3pm; I exercised from 3:30-5 weekdays. My meals were lunch at noon (typically about a pound of meat and some veggies) and dinner (same thing). My workout nutrition consisted of 2L of my protein shake of 1000kcal whey/glucose. (The really cheap man’s anaconda protocol, now with digestive enzymes!)
So aside from the time distribution, I was still consuming a lot of calories. Fridays were even a bit lower carb during my workout ( -300kcal ) so I could really sweat during my carb reload on saturdays. Even during intermittent fasting I could still consume well over 8000kcal a day, about 60-70% carbohydrates. (I credit these days mostly to my size gains).
So take it FWIW, there was muscular gain, but still not enough for me to claim that it is better than just straight up eating.
Finally, for those who have done IF, can you guys post your diets? I wish to know whether these ‘gains’ and my mad mad insulin spike (Also 10g Leucine in said shake) during my workout are correlated in a way. Maybe no insulin spike at all = bad fasting experience?[/quote]
Lol, more interested in a troll, are you seriously getting jealous? Its great how you can “swear” they’re from other sources on the internet that gave me a laugh, they’re the only pics of myself which have anything to do with bodybuilding on my computer, so i just threw em up. As for you calling me stupid, seems like your jumping to conclusions, if we look at it a little more objectively: I’m 2 years away from a BSc in Biology, with a joined psychology major. You are a warehouse labourer, now, that really doesn’t indicate I’m more intelligent, but since were judging and all.
As for IF, I like it a lot, i’ve never used it to gain though, and never with carbs, I was under the impression you had to workout before you started your feeding period, because it gave you the ‘animal-like’ mentality, maybe I’m wrong, or thats just a different method, and btw skipping breakfast doesn’t necessarily mean IF at all.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Damn dude, nothing to eat for 8 hours. IMO that’s too long and your gains could have been better.[/quote]
Seriously? 10 lbs of mass gained while maintaining 12% bf works out to be about 8 lbs of lean weight gained in TWELVE WEEKS without having to get fat to gain it. Without steroids (assuming). That’s not superb? Tell us, what “could have been better”. Better yet, show us how your way has worked better for you.[/quote]
He was merely stating his opinion (Note the IMO). I also agree with him partially.
I am trying to save this thread as I find the topic very interesting, please do not reduce this to arguing yet again.
And yes, no steroids. Although I do have a cocktail of other help (During the fast I took ephedrine HCL and caffeine with fucoxanthine, vitamin C and fish oil) and my workout nutrition consisted of glucose, whey, cinnamon, ALCAR, DMAE, digestive enzymes, Leucine, Creatine, Glutamine (for some reason…) and beta-alanine.
For full disclosure, it’s not like it was just food and effort.
[quote]DieselAllDay wrote:
Lol, more interested in a troll, are you seriously getting jealous? Its great how you can “swear” they’re from other sources on the internet that gave me a laugh, they’re the only pics of myself which have anything to do with bodybuilding on my computer, so i just threw em up. As for you calling me stupid, seems like your jumping to conclusions, if we look at it a little more objectively: I’m 2 years away from a BSc in Biology, with a joined psychology major. You are a warehouse labourer, now, that really doesn’t indicate I’m more intelligent, but since were judging and all.
As for IF, I like it a lot, i’ve never used it to gain though, and never with carbs, I was under the impression you had to workout before you started your feeding period, because it gave you the ‘animal-like’ mentality, maybe I’m wrong, or thats just a different method, and btw skipping breakfast doesn’t necessarily mean IF at all.
[/quote]
Working in a warehouse, to get money this summer before I go back to university in the fall, to finish my degree in dietetics. 
Quick to judge?
[quote]silverhydra wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Damn dude, nothing to eat for 8 hours. IMO that’s too long and your gains could have been better.[/quote]
That’s the problem I face; I did get gains, but what could my gains have been?
Comparing what happened this summer with how my body has reacted in the past, it seems that as long as the food does get ingested and workout nutrition is still plentiful then my body seems to grow at a steady rate. (More meals a day, in the past, have not been too much different from what I did recently; in regards to lean mass)
The one thing I did notice is that it is harder for me to put on fat, and during my fast I expend heat like a mother fucker (I have drenched a shirt and created that little sweat-heart when the fasting’s heat expenditure has combined with my post-lunch meat sweats).
Also, I now have a greater appreciation for how hard to it to lose muscle with proper workout nutrition. Bro-science would have told me that doing some steady-state cardio with nothing but leucine, then not eating for 8 hours at a labour job results in cachexia. Yet I gained…
Who’d a thunk it?[/quote]
Thanks for posting your experience, much more helpfull, on topic and informative than the other crap…including mine
Mind if I ask how you were training during this time?
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Thanks for posting your experience, much more helpfull, on topic and informative than the other crap…including mine
Mind if I ask how you were training during this time?[/quote]
Mostly instinctive, but usually focusing on power, followed by focusing on high volume (to CT’s perfect rep idea) and ending with either some flush sets or more high volume but with a different movement. Power was until I slowed down, high volume was until I couldn’t move.
I should mention that pushing yourself in the gym is so much more fun when you fast for most the day, then induce a massive state of hyperglycemia with workout nutrition
[quote]Seego wrote:
http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-part-2-breakfast/
I’m interested in getting some opinions on this article. I’ve always laboured under the assumption that be it bulk or cut, you get that breakfast down your gullet as fast as you can once you wake.
This is…well, a paradigm shift if true.[/quote]
I’m so fucking confused now. I’ve always been an advocate of eating breakfast. Was I wrong? What if theres NO carbs in the meal. Just protein say?
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
[quote]Seego wrote:
http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-part-2-breakfast/
I’m interested in getting some opinions on this article. I’ve always laboured under the assumption that be it bulk or cut, you get that breakfast down your gullet as fast as you can once you wake.
This is…well, a paradigm shift if true.[/quote]
I’m so fucking confused now. I’ve always been an advocate of eating breakfast. Was I wrong? What if theres NO carbs in the meal. Just protein say?[/quote]
If this post was serious, I really feel sorry for your guys who go around switching everything up every time an article is released.
If you were actually confident in what you were doing, you would know whether it was working for you or not and an article wouldn’t change a thing.
I’ve been a long time reader on this forum and site but never posted something. But since I find intermittent fasting interesting, here goes.
I’ve followed the if protocol and I’m glad I did. But the thing is, don’t expect miracles from it. At the end, it all comes down to the difference between how much calories you eat and how much calories your body needs. Whether you eat those calories in an eight hour window or a longer window, it won’t make a big difference.
However, there is some research which SUGGESTS that intermittent fasting could be beneficial:
Whether or not IF is superior to a more coventional approach, I’m pretty sure it isn’t worse.
To conclude, my experience with IF:
So for me, it works. And I can only recommend it to people who find it rather difficult to eat 6 small meals a day. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that breakfast will slow down results, i’m just saying there’s more than one road leading to success.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Damn dude, nothing to eat for 8 hours. IMO that’s too long and your gains could have been better.[/quote]
Seriously? 10 lbs of mass gained while maintaining 12% bf works out to be about 8 lbs of lean weight gained in TWELVE WEEKS without having to get fat to gain it. Without steroids (assuming). That’s not superb? Tell us, what “could have been better”. Better yet, show us how your way has worked better for you.[/quote]
Jesus, guy, cool down. You sound very argumentative. Where did I say that his results sucked? His results were GREAT. I’m saying his results would probably be marginally better if he did not fast for so long. I’m not speaking from personal experience, and I don’t have any studies to throw at you, but 8 hours seems excessive, no?
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
[quote]Seego wrote:
http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-part-2-breakfast/
I’m interested in getting some opinions on this article. I’ve always laboured under the assumption that be it bulk or cut, you get that breakfast down your gullet as fast as you can once you wake.
This is…well, a paradigm shift if true.[/quote]
I’m so fucking confused now. I’ve always been an advocate of eating breakfast. Was I wrong? What if theres NO carbs in the meal. Just protein say?[/quote]
Agreed with what Prof X has said… from the posts I’ve read by you, it seems that you are not very confident in your training or nutrition approach, and it seems like you hop on some new article you read, new training system you read, etc… This is just my outlook on your posts, if this isn’t the case then I apologize.
Carbs-wise in breakfast… I can tell you from my own experience that I do much better in training and in getting lean without exceeding 30g carbs in my breakfast. I generally have a slice of Ezekial bread (15g), and 15g of carbs from blueberries or an apple.
Poliquin has said that for many people, he prefers a meat and nut breakfast, especially before training, and I agree with him (at least in my case, experiment for yourself). I feel much more energetic in the first few hours of waking up, and my training is usually quite dialed in that day. The tyrosine in the meat increases your dopamine levels, which is an important neurotransmitter of energy.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Damn dude, nothing to eat for 8 hours. IMO that’s too long and your gains could have been better.[/quote]
Seriously? 10 lbs of mass gained while maintaining 12% bf works out to be about 8 lbs of lean weight gained in TWELVE WEEKS without having to get fat to gain it. Without steroids (assuming). That’s not superb? Tell us, what “could have been better”. Better yet, show us how your way has worked better for you.[/quote]
Jesus, guy, cool down. You sound very argumentative. Where did I say that his results sucked? His results were GREAT. I’m saying his results would probably be marginally better if he did not fast for so long. I’m not speaking from personal experience, and I don’t have any studies to throw at you, but 8 hours seems excessive, no?[/quote]
So you wake up in the middle of the night to eat? If you sleep like a normal, hard training person should and don’t wake up at some point to eat, then you’re fasting for at least 8 hours daily. Considering that people eating this way are routinely putting down 1500-2000 calorie meals before beginning their fasts, its not like they don’t have a steady supply of nutrients for quite a bit of that fast since digestion and absorption of nutrients does not happen immediately after a whole food meal (how do people forget this?). A meal of that size could easily take more than your arbitrary 8 hour time period to fully digest.
There are studies referenced repeatedly on some of the sites that have been linked here showing 1) an INCREASE in metabolism in fasted individuals 2) an INCREASE in fatty acid oxidation in fasted individuals and 3) no significant increase in gluconeogenesis (conversion of amino acids to glucose) for fasted periods of 16 hours, which is twice as long as your arbitrary window. So no, 8 hours is in no way excessive.
As far as your “could have been better” comment, I don’t know why you would say that without intending to somehow diminish or demean the progress he made. Your “could have been marginally better” sounds more like backpedaling than clarification.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Damn dude, nothing to eat for 8 hours. IMO that’s too long and your gains could have been better.[/quote]
Seriously? 10 lbs of mass gained while maintaining 12% bf works out to be about 8 lbs of lean weight gained in TWELVE WEEKS without having to get fat to gain it. Without steroids (assuming). That’s not superb? Tell us, what “could have been better”. Better yet, show us how your way has worked better for you.[/quote]
Jesus, guy, cool down. You sound very argumentative. Where did I say that his results sucked? His results were GREAT. I’m saying his results would probably be marginally better if he did not fast for so long. I’m not speaking from personal experience, and I don’t have any studies to throw at you, but 8 hours seems excessive, no?[/quote]
So you wake up in the middle of the night to eat? If you sleep like a normal, hard training person should and don’t wake up at some point to eat, then you’re fasting for at least 8 hours daily. Considering that people eating this way are routinely putting down 1500-2000 calorie meals before beginning their fasts, its not like they don’t have a steady supply of nutrients for quite a bit of that fast since digestion and absorption of nutrients does not happen immediately after a whole food meal (how do people forget this?). A meal of that size could easily take more than your arbitrary 8 hour time period to fully digest.
There are studies referenced repeatedly on some of the sites that have been linked here showing 1) an INCREASE in metabolism in fasted individuals 2) an INCREASE in fatty acid oxidation in fasted individuals and 3) no significant increase in gluconeogenesis (conversion of amino acids to glucose) for fasted periods of 16 hours, which is twice as long as your arbitrary window. So no, 8 hours is in no way excessive.
As far as your “could have been better” comment, I don’t know why you would say that without intending to somehow diminish or demean the progress he made. Your “could have been marginally better” sounds more like backpedaling than clarification.[/quote]
And I can’t say I disagree with anything you wrote (except backpedaling, you are reading my statement in the wrong manner, I am not one to diminish ANYONE’s progress. My previous post history should show that). I don’t KNOW if silverhydra’s results could have been better… I THINK they could have been.
“no significant increase in gluconeogenesis for fasted periods of 16 hours, which is twice as long as your arbitrary window”
Silverhydra was without food for 16-ish hours, no? I’m assuming he slept for 8 or so hours, and then add on the 8 hours of fasting. To me, this seems that there could be a reasonable chance that gluconeogenesis CAN occur. Who knows if it would be 15.5 hours, 16.5 hours, or something totally different… all I know is I would not take that chance and just go off of what one or a couple of studies said.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
I’m so fucking confused now. I’ve always been an advocate of eating breakfast. Was I wrong? What if theres NO carbs in the meal. Just protein say?[/quote]
If this post was serious, I really feel sorry for your guys who go around switching everything up every time an article is released.
If you were actually confident in what you were doing, you would know whether it was working for you or not and an article wouldn’t change a thing.[/quote]
This is the whole problem with an article like this. I’m not saying there aren’t some valid, scientifically sound points made here, but when people immediately start acting like this new information is now the BEST and ONLY approach to use - that’s when it gets fucking nuts.
It’s ONE article - it’s perhaps an approach one might think about testing out, but to feel that it instantly negates everything that’s come prior is just idiotic.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
I’m so fucking confused now. I’ve always been an advocate of eating breakfast. Was I wrong? What if theres NO carbs in the meal. Just protein say?[/quote]
If this post was serious, I really feel sorry for your guys who go around switching everything up every time an article is released.
If you were actually confident in what you were doing, you would know whether it was working for you or not and an article wouldn’t change a thing.[/quote]
This is the whole problem with an article like this. I’m not saying there aren’t some valid, scientifically sound points made here, but when people immediately start acting like this new information is now the BEST and ONLY approach to use - that’s when it gets fucking nuts.
It’s ONE article - it’s perhaps an approach one might think about testing out, but to feel that it instantly negates everything that’s come prior is just idiotic. [/quote]
Then why are so many skipping that this is exactly what was going on in this thread? Why do you guys think I asked where the muscle was? Newbs are reading this shit with little to no muscle mass thinking this is how they can finally “get huge and ripped” at the exact same time.
Everytime once of us makes an issue of this, we get shouted down by someone who apparently thinking “fitness training” is the same thing as bodybuilding.
Unless someone is carrying a great deal of body fat currently, I do not understand why anyone would latch onto this unless it was someone very advanced tweaking things to reach a higher level.
These fuckers here are NOT elite. I am doubting most stand out much at all.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
I’m so fucking confused now. I’ve always been an advocate of eating breakfast. Was I wrong? What if theres NO carbs in the meal. Just protein say?[/quote]
If this post was serious, I really feel sorry for your guys who go around switching everything up every time an article is released.
If you were actually confident in what you were doing, you would know whether it was working for you or not and an article wouldn’t change a thing.[/quote]
This is the whole problem with an article like this. I’m not saying there aren’t some valid, scientifically sound points made here, but when people immediately start acting like this new information is now the BEST and ONLY approach to use - that’s when it gets fucking nuts.
It’s ONE article - it’s perhaps an approach one might think about testing out, but to feel that it instantly negates everything that’s come prior is just idiotic. [/quote]
I don’t know what you’re seeing, but the only people suggesting that there is only one way to do things are on the 6 meals a day side. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that IF is the only way to go.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I don’t know what you’re seeing, but the only people suggesting that there is only one way to do things are on the 6 meals a day side. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that IF is the only way to go.[/quote]
Seriously? There’s a kid right here asking if he’s been “doing it wrong”…
My point is that people tend to polarize towards the latest thing, as if that is the only valid approach now that the “secret” has been revealed.
Not just in this thread, but you see it all the time, all over this site.
Just posting in with my experience. I am generally not a big breakfast eater, but I would eat breakfast 3 or 4 times per week. There are many days where I would just not be hungry in the morning and force something down just to get in the meal.
Well, After a couple weeks of this one surprising thing for me is my gut has de-bloated. I mean I actually feel less bloated in the gut. To one persons earlier point, I think giving my gut a "rest every day has probably improved my bacteria profile and I almost feel like I am getting more out of the food I am eating.
For sure 2 weeks is a short amount of time, but I’m trying to keep weight the same while I adjust to this before I go on a bulk this fall and try to put on 10 Lbs or so. I started this 2 weeks ago at about 198, after 9 days I actually hit 192, and now I’m back up around 195. So like I said, something happened. I feel less bloated in the gut, and I expect by the end of the week I’ll end up pretty close to that 198-200 Lb mark, not that 195 is all that far off.
V
Well figured I’d add my two cents in. I’ve been using this approach for a few weeks now, and have enjoyed it quite a bit. Strength levels still going up, bodyfat going down. Do I think it’s the end all to be all of nutrition? Of course not. It does force me to take in less calories since I’m starting my feeding later in the day (providing I don’t go overboard on dinner like last night, i.e. 3500 calories of goodness and insulin related coma thereafter). As Kiefer says, it’s not particularly geared for someone trying to put on massive amounts of size, but from my experimentation it’s worked well in maintaining strength while trying to make weight for races.
As far as people hopping on/off the bandwagon anytime something new comes out, I agree. Sadly T-Nation seems to be losing some of it’s level-headedness.
A little context is required.
Why do we assume that things are black and white and that one method is better than another? Look, if you are someone who needs to ingest something like 4 - 5,000 kcalories a day, then spacing such a large intake out over multiple smaller meals is going to be much more manageable than several larger feedings. Which will likely necessitate breakfast. If you are into the research, it does suggest that smaller, frequent feedings increase appetite between meals, so we can see why in this case it could be appropriate.
If you only need 2,000 - 3,000 kcalories per day then a less frequent eating schedule maybe more appropriate for your appetite regulation and goals. Now if you do go over 16 hours without eating, as long as total intake is appropriate ( I define this as macronutrition and total energy intake), then you will be fine.
Yes this is an individual thing, but equally, meal to meal appetite regulation is adjustable.
Meal frequency isn’t really important, the main thing is to ensure that your intake is adjusted to your goals. Yes there are benefits to extended periods inbetween meals (and some research does suggest that you could eat too frequently, from a protein synthesis perspective), but if this prevents you from getting sufficient nutrients, then maybe it isn’t appropriate for you.