- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can anyone confirm some IF broscience with anecdotal evidence?
Posted on 7/7/19 at 8:09 am to Hulkklogan
Posted on 7/7/19 at 8:09 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
science-based social media experts
1
Posted on 7/7/19 at 8:57 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
You know, PhDs with many years of experience. Some of the most respected names in the fitness industry.
But sure, deflect my question with a laughing emoji because you don't have an answer.
But sure, deflect my question with a laughing emoji because you don't have an answer.
This post was edited on 7/7/19 at 9:07 am
Posted on 7/7/19 at 9:11 am to Hulkklogan
Here is the overview of the paper:
This study was done using an FMD, which Longo states provides the benefits of fasting without completely adopting a water only fast. An FMD is a five day dietary intervention where the user consumes 1000 calories day one, then ~700 (or less) or 30%-40% of ones daily caloric needs on days 2-5. It is also characterized by low or no animal protein as well. So, you are correct that caloric restriction in general triggers autophagy; however, the FMD is extreme caloric restriction for around a week. It is recommended once per month by Dr Longo, but that could be difficult to fit in for most people. I wonder if OMAD combined with limited animal protein (and likely reduced protein in general) would trigger similar results. I need to research the right macro ratios used in his “Prolon” FMD pack and apply that to an OMAD for a similar effect.
MS Mice Model - FMD
quote:
Dietary interventions have not been effective in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Here we show that periodic 3 day cycles of a fasting mimicking diet (FMD) are effective in ameliorating demyelination and symptoms in a murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) model. The FMD reduced clinical severity in all mice, and completely reversed symptoms in 20% of the animals. These improvements were associated with increased corticosterone levels and Treg cell number, reduced levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, TH1 and TH17 cells, and antigen presenting cells (APCs). Moreover, the FMD promoted oligodendrocyte precursor cell regeneration and remyelination in axons in response to both EAE and cuprizone MS models, supporting its effects on both suppression of autoimmunity and remyelination. We also report preliminary data suggesting that a FMD or a chronic ketogenic diet are safe, feasible and potentially effective in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients
This study was done using an FMD, which Longo states provides the benefits of fasting without completely adopting a water only fast. An FMD is a five day dietary intervention where the user consumes 1000 calories day one, then ~700 (or less) or 30%-40% of ones daily caloric needs on days 2-5. It is also characterized by low or no animal protein as well. So, you are correct that caloric restriction in general triggers autophagy; however, the FMD is extreme caloric restriction for around a week. It is recommended once per month by Dr Longo, but that could be difficult to fit in for most people. I wonder if OMAD combined with limited animal protein (and likely reduced protein in general) would trigger similar results. I need to research the right macro ratios used in his “Prolon” FMD pack and apply that to an OMAD for a similar effect.
MS Mice Model - FMD
Posted on 7/7/19 at 9:13 am to LSUTiger1026
Thanks.
I'm just legit curious if fasting provides additional autophagy or if it's simply easier to accomplish than severe caloric restriction
I'm just legit curious if fasting provides additional autophagy or if it's simply easier to accomplish than severe caloric restriction
Posted on 7/7/19 at 10:14 am to Hulkklogan
Best study to date on IF was released this week by the guys at Texas Tech specifically Dr Grant Tinsley. LINK
Menno did a good summary of it
I do not agree with Menno on everything and neither does Grant. Specifically the per protocol group did show greater fatloss. Menno automatically attributed it to the IF group taking in less calories since the study was based on reporting and not done in a controlled setting. I and Dr Grant both believe it needs further research is needed to prove one way or the other. There is some promise to IF to possibly burn more bodyfat than isocaloric.
As far as the autophagy question, more than half of the effects come from the caloric deficit and using body fat for fuel. At least based on the studies I have seen. Dry fasting accelerates these effects but it is still dangerous.
Menno did a good summary of it
quote:
No study has very rigorously examined the effect of intermittent fasting on muscle growth. Until now. Grant Tinsley et al. (2019) is arguably the best-controlled study on intermittent fasting to date.
The researchers randomized female strength trainees into 2 groups. Both groups were given the same macros intended to establish a small energy deficit and both groups supplemented whey protein.
1. The IF group consumed all food between 12:00 and 20:00 h and trained sometime in this window (so no fasted training and they had post-workout nutrition).
2. Another IF group with the same protocol consumed HMB.
3. The control group consumed an early breakfast and could eat all day, ending up with a ~13 hour eating window instead of the ~8 hour IF eating window.
The IF and control group achieved similar results with no significant differences between groups in muscle growth (increase in fat-free mass and muscle thickness of the elbow flexors and quads), fat loss or strength development (6 measures including 1RM bench press and leg press). See attached figure for an overview of the results.
One exception: the IF group supplementing HBM achieved less quadriceps growth (significant in PP, strong trend in ITT).
Results were the same in the total intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) and the stricter per-protocol (PP) analysis.
Resting energy expenditure and standard health biomarkers also didn’t differ between groups, except for pulse wave velocity (measure of arterial stiffness), which was all over the place, so I don’t think we can reliably interpret that.
Mood states, sleep quality and eating behaviors also didn’t differ significantly between groups.
These findings suggest IF with an 8-hour eating window does not affect our body composition, training progression or basically anything at all.
However, this study was not sufficiently statistically powered to detect small differences. Out of the 40 initial participants, only 31 remained by the end of the study and only 24 followed the study per protocol.
While macro intakes did not significantly differ between groups in the total sample or the per-protocol participants, there was an over 200 kcal difference in energy intake between groups in the per-protocol analysis and a strong trend (p = 0.09) for carbohydrate intake to differ between groups. The respiratory quotient also differed between groups, suggesting macronutrient intakes differed (significant in PP, p = 0.1 in ITT).
Take-home messages:
- Intermittent fasting won't majorly affect your gains, at least as long as you don't train fasted and have proper post-workout nutrition.
- HMB still sucks.
- Women can be successful on IF diets just like men, although no gender difference was formally investigated in this study.
I do not agree with Menno on everything and neither does Grant. Specifically the per protocol group did show greater fatloss. Menno automatically attributed it to the IF group taking in less calories since the study was based on reporting and not done in a controlled setting. I and Dr Grant both believe it needs further research is needed to prove one way or the other. There is some promise to IF to possibly burn more bodyfat than isocaloric.
As far as the autophagy question, more than half of the effects come from the caloric deficit and using body fat for fuel. At least based on the studies I have seen. Dry fasting accelerates these effects but it is still dangerous.
Posted on 7/7/19 at 11:02 am to lsu777
Thanks.
Sucks that many participants didn't follow protocol. Makes that study mean a whole lot less and much murkier.
Sucks that many participants didn't follow protocol. Makes that study mean a whole lot less and much murkier.
Posted on 7/7/19 at 11:03 am to StringedInstruments
My sugar craving soared when I was on an IF schedule.
When your stomach is empty, it appears smaller. After you eat, it pooches.
When your stomach is empty, it appears smaller. After you eat, it pooches.
Posted on 7/7/19 at 4:10 pm to lsu777
quote:
We agree on 99% of things, from a scientific standpoint I just haven't seen anything that convinces me keto, carnivore, low carb, low fat etc provide any type of advantage at actual body fat loss once protein and calories are aquated.
Though scientifically, basically correct, it doesn't get to the underling issue. Here's the bitch of that statement that is always overlooked in this context. Typically, those subjects on the low carb or keto diets (no studies of this nature exist studying carnivore diets currently) in these studies have to overeat to match those "calories" on the other diets, so they need to overeat the fat. Eating beyond what a person even wants is hardly comparable as those subjects would want to eat less, and successfully do so...but diet adherence in the long term is always troublesome in the studies as people veer away due to social struggles and addictions - not due to the diet itself. Also, these studies typically want to add back in carb slowly for some reason (showing what I have no idea). This has always been my beef all along as the hunger question is never satisfied (pun intended - sorry).
Now, why is it that these subjects feel they need to overeat to match calories? Definitely the protein, but why? Probably because our bodies have a bit more going on than some simple input/output. Because hunger/satiation control (hormones) is vastly affected.
Posted on 7/7/19 at 8:57 pm to lsu777
quote:
Best study to date on IF was released this week by the guys at Texas Tech specifically Dr Grant Tinsley. LINK
Couple of things I noticed in that study:
quote:
Body weight changes were minor, with a change of 0 to +1% in the TRF groups and +2% in CD. All groups increased fat-free mass, as assessed by a 4-component (4C) model, by 2 to 3% (2 to 3 pounds) relative to baseline.
So in 8 weeks the IF groups and the control group all gained 2-3% in fat-free mass, but the control group gained 2% total body weight while the IF groups gained 0-1% total body weight. Am I missing something here or does this not indicate that the IF groups had a marginally better body composition change compared to the control group? This may be considered minor in the study but when talking about IF as a long-term lifestyle change it adds up over the years.
quote:
In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference between fat mass changes in CD (+2%; ~1 pound), TRF (-2%; ~1 pound) or TRFHMB (-4%; ~1.5 pounds).....
....The final changes in fat mass in the per protocol analysis were +2% (~1 pound) for CD, -4% (~1.75 pounds) for TRF, and -7% (~3 pounds) for TRFHMB.
Again, maybe I'm missing something but the control group gaining ~1 pound of fat while the IF groups lost 1-3lbs of fat with all else being equal over 8 weeks is a notable difference. It may not be significant to the study's objective but a 1-2lb fat gain/loss difference in 8 weeks with IF being the only variable is impressive to me. Extrapolated out over 2-3 years as a lifestyle change this becomes a significant body composition change and health improvement for alot of people.
Posted on 7/7/19 at 10:07 pm to Huey Lewis
quote:
So in 8 weeks the IF groups and the control group all gained 2-3% in fat-free mass, but the control group gained 2% total body weight while the IF groups gained 0-1% total body weight. Am I missing something here or does this not indicate that the IF groups had a marginally better body composition change compared to the control group? This may be considered minor in the study but when talking about IF as a long-term lifestyle change it adds up over the years.
Correct the total body weight change is just that, total body weight change not overall bf%
quote:
Again, maybe I'm missing something but the control group gaining ~1 pound of fat while the IF groups lost 1-3lbs of fat with all else being equal over 8 weeks is a notable difference. It may not be significant to the study's objective but a 1-2lb fat gain/loss difference in 8 weeks with IF being the only variable is impressive to me. Extrapolated out over 2-3 years as a lifestyle change this becomes a significant body composition change and health improvement for alot of people
I agree and it's why I do not agree with Menno on his conclusion and feel it needs to be investigated further both in men and women. Btw this study was all women.
Like you said an extra 2 pounds of fat every 8 weeks adds up. That's an extra 13 pounds or so a year. When you talk about pure fat loss plus gaining mass at the same time ( I realize this will slow) this adds up to a huge difference in body comp over the course of 2-3 years.
Remember this 16:8 IF, we are not talking any real hard form of IF, we are talking an eating window 12-8 or 11-7. Both allow for normal lunch and dinner. Allows people who workout in the afternoon to have post workout nutrition etc.
Whatever the reason it needs to be studied further first in women and then in men. Hopefully the next two years brings that study to fruition.
Posted on 7/7/19 at 10:18 pm to Junky
Actually there is a study, not on carnivore, but on the very subject you are speaking of. And I have posted it before and it does show those that stick to keto do tend to power energy consumption over time while not reducing energy used through non exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT).
It's why I do say keto is a fine tool to use. But it is just a tool. For some it works, others find it too strict. It's why I get upset when people just jump to that is the solution, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Same with IF. Compliance is roughly the same across iso caloric and keto(~23%) so let the person use what they feel comfortable using.
I have posted before most people from a health standpoint would be much better off fatsing for 72 hours at a time, then 48 hours keto and repeating until one is no longer obese.
Keto does have its issues though, like iso caloric some do not do well with high fats from a health standpoint. Just like some do terrible with carbs(higher percentage does worse with carb imo). Also keto is not conducive to performance, even when fat adapted. Keto is not very good for building muscle.
In other words keto is a great tool, but it has its drawbacks and is not for everyone. Same with carnivore.
They shouldn't, but many do not understand signals of being full. Some like myself just love fricking meat and have no issue knocking down a 24 oz steak twice daily plus 3-4 eggs. And remember if one does tend to overeat on calories, dietary fat is the easiest macro for the body to store as body fat.
It's why I do say keto is a fine tool to use. But it is just a tool. For some it works, others find it too strict. It's why I get upset when people just jump to that is the solution, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Same with IF. Compliance is roughly the same across iso caloric and keto(~23%) so let the person use what they feel comfortable using.
I have posted before most people from a health standpoint would be much better off fatsing for 72 hours at a time, then 48 hours keto and repeating until one is no longer obese.
Keto does have its issues though, like iso caloric some do not do well with high fats from a health standpoint. Just like some do terrible with carbs(higher percentage does worse with carb imo). Also keto is not conducive to performance, even when fat adapted. Keto is not very good for building muscle.
In other words keto is a great tool, but it has its drawbacks and is not for everyone. Same with carnivore.
quote:
Now, why is it that these subjects feel they need to overeat to match calories? Definitely the protein, but why? Probably because our bodies have a bit more going on than some simple input/output. Because hunger/satiation control (hormones) is vastly affected
They shouldn't, but many do not understand signals of being full. Some like myself just love fricking meat and have no issue knocking down a 24 oz steak twice daily plus 3-4 eggs. And remember if one does tend to overeat on calories, dietary fat is the easiest macro for the body to store as body fat.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News