Originally Posted by
KraneXL
Um, no. But even if I did it wouldn't pass on anything that biased and esoteric. The *studies and research I quote* are a lot more reliable and with less biased than that. Maybe if you rephrase the question if I misunderstand what you're asking?First, its an adaptive process. So it takes time to build up to the point of best utilization.
Second, I've expressed on multiple occasions, that I'm not an advocate of fasted cycling, nor do I intent to be anytime soon. I don't think that's the best application for IF.
Also we need to keep in mind that IF is a protocol, not a diet. Nevertheless, if you have any information about its effectiveness, I wouldn't mind hearing it. Which is one reason I'm not an advocate.
I think I missed seeing any studies and research among your posts. By those two words, I mean research papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You know, equivalent to the studies I've posted in this thread. Since as you say, there are zillions of studies out there, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find and post studies that support your contentions that IF:
1) will "
achieve improved exercise efficiency and
nutritional benefit from whatever diet and training routine you choose "
2) "places the body in a
higher bio-active state for
maximum nutritional uptake, and
exercise recuperation"
3) "I choose to use IF, predominantly as an anaerobic training tool" (studies to back up that this works, i.e. IF improves anaerobic performance)
4) "increased muscle hypertrophy"
"Also, some people are anomalies, but that's not science. There's not necessarily a right or wrong, but it has to be something that works for the majority, and
is repeatable under similar circumstances to be valid." Since you admit that, there must be RCTs which support your contentions.