KraneXL

What Is Intermittent Fasting (IF)?

Intermittent fasting (IF) is a term for an eating pattern that cycles between periods of fasting and eating.
It does not say anything about which foods you should eat, but rather when you should eat them.
In this respect, it is not a "diet" in the conventional sense. It is more accurately described as an "eating pattern."
Common intermittent fasting methods involve daily 16 hour fasts, or fasting for 24 hours, twice per week.


6 Popular Ways to Do Intermittent Fasting


How Intermittent Fasting Might Help You Live a Longer and Healthier Life

Hondo Gravel

Some weightlifters use intermittent fasting they say it burns fat and gives your digestive system a break. I’ve been on 16 hour fasts not by choice if I go without eating for 10 hours or so while surf fishing I actually feel good even with hunger pangs. I would guess fasting cleans you out.

TimothyH

Fasting is good for the body and has been a universal practice for thousands of years.

Catholics fast during Lent and many of us fast on Fridays during the rest of the year as well.

Muslims fast. My friend from Tanzania says, "You just relax and enjoy it."

I know Trappist monks who fast every Wednesday and Friday. Most of them live into their 90's.


-Tim-

Altimis

Intermittent Fast is good.

But fasted training is different story.

KraneXL

Its actually the body's most potent natural growth hormone and test booster. That's exactly what it does. At least that's one of the many benefits to IF. It gives your digestive track a much needed break, and a chance to cleans itself of all the residual matter that collects over time and would weigh you down otherwise.

Another benefit to IF, is its ability to help you lose weight. It is the single best way to lose weight and stay healthy and can be a great boost to any diet program. It is my hope that this thread would as a repository of information, suggestions and testimonial of people who have used and benefited from IF.

As for my personal experience with this system, I've been on the 16/8 program for some time now and have helped me reduced my fat percentage by 4% down from 15% bf. At this point I think I've reach my limit so effective last week I've begun adding a full 24 hour fast twice/week.

As a matter of fact, I went a full 29 hours (not intentionally) last week, and 28 and counting, so far today. I really thought I would feel ravenous by this point, however, I feel no different than when I fast my regular 16/8.

My goal is to reduce by another 2% by July, and try and reach my ultimate goal of a sub 10% bf. We shall see how it goes; and my hope is that others that use it, and/or have not yet tried it will join in and post their progress on this great program. Just don't call it a diet.

canklecat

I've done that routinely for years. I didn't know it was a thing. Once or twice a week I go about 16 hours without eating, then eat one meal that day. Just drink fluids. Usually I'll do it if I've been feeling a bit bloated. Seems to help.

No particular goal. Not weight loss or anything else. If I happen to have a free day at home where I'm unlikely to experience a blood sugar bonk I'll just do it. Sometimes I get a little peckish but it's not a thing where I feel like I'm sacrificing anything.

I wasn't even sure it helped or hurt weight loss efforts. There are conflicting theories, including a theory that fasting causes the body to retain or gain weight. Who knows. That wasn't my goal. My weight has come of primarily due to exercise and being more careful about what I eat.

wolfchild

What many proponents of intermittent fasting fail to tell you is that it burns more muscle than fat. It's not good as a long term lifestyle choice and it isn't the most effective way to loose fat.

TimothyH

Again, fasting has been a spiritual and physical practice for thousands of years.

I know Trappist monks who fast every Wednesday and Friday and have been doing so for 60+ years. They all work hard in factories, taking care of guest houses, farming, in the kitchen, etc., and many live well into their 90's. Benedictine monks have been living this way since the 5th century.

It isn't a big deal.


-Tim-

KraneXL

Fact is, IF can preserve and/or increase muscle mass.
Fasting is good for the body and good for the soul.

OBoile

There's nothing special about IF. At least, nothing that has been proven. If it helps you control your caloric intake without suffering too much, then by all means have at it. But if you want to eat regularly, you aren't missing out on anything.

redlude97

Curious what everyone's training schedules are with the IF, I also use a 16:8 fast mostly out of convenience but I also have a 1+ hour commute each way incorporated in. That means a fasted training ride in the morning and a glycogen replenished harder ride in the afternoon. I've worked up to being able to do the morning commute at sweet spot NP. Delaying eating for another 3+ hours after why glycogen depleted seems to add some bonus fat adaption. And thr afternoon sessions allow for HIIT.

The Snowman

I have found the best results for weight control and exercise fulfillment are with the 16/8 method. I usually start eating at 8am and finish before 3pm. I eat enough to sustain any evening exercise that I do and it works quite well.

You'll find that with this method IF you can have the willpower to not overeat, it's a great way to lose weight. I find that days that I gain a pound are days where 1) I have had over 100oz of water or 2) where I eat after 5pm.

At my heaviest in early 2014, I weighted 238 pounds. A motorcycle roadracing crash and subsequent healing brought me down to 210 pounds, hen I started inline speed skating again after a 10 year hiatus. I added spin classes to my training and eventually cycling and dropped a few pounds by documenting food consumption. But the biggest losses were when I started the 16/8 method. I got down to a low of 177 last September, but most times, I bounce around between 185 and 190.

wolfchild

Wrong again... You can't increase muscle mass while being in caloric deficit for 16 hours a day. How do I know ??, because I have a lot of experience with fasting including total abstinence from food for up to 3-4 days at a time... I have experimented and done a lot of fasting when I was much younger, I've also spent a lot of time in caloric deficit just to see what effect it would have on my body and mind, but I don't do that anymore. My priority right now as I get older is to preserve as much muscle as possible. I follow an athletic lifestyle, not a monastic lifestyle.

wolfchild

Monks have different goals and priorities form athletes. You can't compare the two because it's a completely different lifestyle... Fasting may be ok for monks but it isn't very ideal for people who follow an athletic lifestyle or people who have very physically demanding jobs out in the real world.

KraneXL

You've been doing it wrong. If you're open and receptive this thread is here to correct for those errors.Their focus is different but the physical effects are beneficial regardless of intent.In fact, it can be extremely beneficial for anyone particularly athletes. You're making negatives instead of embracing the positives. If you don't like IF don't do it, its not for everyone. But that does not mean it doesn't work.

wolfchild

I said this before and I am going to say it again. The weight loss which you get form intermittent fasting or any calorie restricted diet will never be 100% fat loss, it's both muscle and fat that you're losing and probably more muscle than fat... It is just impossible for human body to only loose fat without losing some muscle, especially on calorie restricted diet or through fasting. I don't doubt health benefits of fasting, but it all depends on what your main goals are. If your goal is to build and retain lean muscle tissue and increase athletic performance, then fasting isn't ideal... The thing is that you can still be healthy without starving yourself by eating a normal balanced diet and following a good exercise program.

Carbonfiberboy 

A riding buddy of mine is a very talented athlete. At 70, he rode a bike over the highest road pass in the world, something over 18,000'. When he came back, he took 45' off the record for his age group on a local mountain TT. So he's got cred. He also has very good friends in India, with whom he stays for a few weeks every year. They have a standard Indian practice of fasting one day a week, so he did too. Coming back from those trips, he'd try to maintain that discipline, but it just didn't work with riding. Screwed up his metabolism to where he hadn't good riding energy for much of the week, so he quit doing it while in the US. He thought it didn't work because it bounced his hormones and glycogen all over the place. I've found it's best athletically to keep things nice and steady.

wolfchild

I've done the 16/8 and 18/6 IF before and I didn't like the results. Tell me what I did wrong.

Carbonfiberboy 

Oh I see . . . This is one of those threads like the low carb threads of old, where if you aren't an advocate, don't post in this thread because we don't want to hear anything negative about what we're doing. That should always be mentioned in the OP.

Got it.

redlude97

Agreed on the first part, not so sure on the second part.
In terms of achieving an equal calorie deficit what is your opinion on retaining fitness and muscle mass in terms of "normal diet" and IF? Be as scientific as you'd like. I would really like to have this conversation, preferably backed by studies. It is pretty much a consensus that losing weight while raising FTP is difficult to impossible. The goal is usually to maintain FTP while losing weight resulting in an increase in W/Kg. Physiologically, things are going on during IF and especially fasted training that can maybe overcome this hurdle with proper nutrition periodization https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26741119

KraneXL

Fasting is not for everyone. It may be because of their schedule, job, lifestyle, etc. Or maybe they just don't like fasting.
Not at all. Challenges are welcome; and there are pro and cons to any system. Pointing them out is a good thing. However, naysaying (negative just for the sake of being negative) is something totally different.

The point of the thread is two fold:

1) To educate on the positives aspect of fasting -- specifically IF -- as it applies to diet and overall physical health.

2) To encourage and support those that use the system or that maybe considering using it to improve their health and well-being.

There is a wealth of research presently available, so I'm hoping I can share some of what I've learned and experience and in the process learn something new and stay current of what being developed and discovered as research continues.

mcours2006

I am assuming that '16/8' refers to a 16-hour fast, which I do regularly, sort of, but I had no idea there was a name for it. For me it was just my routine. I'd finish by eating by 6PM and sometimes get up and do workouts in the morning, usually riding or running, and then break fast at 8 or 9 AM the next day. Okay, not quite 16 but close.

Been doing it for years. I weight train, run, and ride, and eat clean. I wouldn't attribute any of my weight loss or healthfulness to IF. It's more of the clean eating and exercise.

I wouldn't go 24 hours without eating. I enjoy my breakfast too much.

redlude97

The most common 16/8 is to skip breakfast. If you are on a normal 9-5: Work-12pm Lunch-Work-Gym/Ride-Dinner by 8pm

wolfchild

Just to make myself clear. I wasn't being negative. I only responded to this thread based on my own individual experiences which I had. I am glad you started this tread and I am glad that IF works for you. I find it interesting reading other peoples experiences.

Carbonfiberboy 

No fair! I remember this table but not the PDF URL. I only get the abstract from your link, no table, etc. It's a study of sleep low, train low (low carb availability) vs. train high. Without the PDF we don't know what their definition of "economy" is. So of course the SL group's fat oxidation improved, but with a concomitant decrease in CHO oxidation. There's always a trade-off. Also no TT results for the two groups, which is what I would call the determinant result as far as desirability of SL etc. goes. See my tag line.

Many of us do a variation on the SL thing by simply training in the morning before breakfast, or going on training rides for several hours without eating, etc., which all have a similar effect on fat burning. But then we also do intervals to keep the carb burning apparatus in good condition.

Chapple started this line of thinking back in 2006 with his Base Building for Cyclists. AFAIK the method by which one periodizes nutrition to achieve this increase in fat burning makes no difference.

I ran across an interesting article on pros doing what one might call permanent nutritional periodization:
https://www.ridemedia.com.au/feature...weight-debate/