Intermittent Fasting

[lczeledoc]

After reading Dr. Mike's blog entry on IF I decided to try it. After following the PPLP for 4 months I found myself on somedays not being particularly hungry at the expected eating times. So I would skip breakfast or lunch. SO I decided and started last Saturday. I had brunch at around 11 am, I went to a party and ate at around 5 pm. I ate lots of meats and cheese cake. On Sunday I went to the gym around 11 am. Did my customary heavy lifting, didn't notice any drop in energy. Then had dinner at around 6 pm. I had steak (yummy), salad, strawberries, cheese. The food tasted so great! I thought I would eat a lot more, but I didn't. On Monday had brunch (2 chicken breasts and salad) then at 6 pm (Todai's). I stuffed myself with sashimi, some fruit, and creme brulee. On Tuesday I fasted during the day, went to the gym at 5:30 pm, again no problem doing my workout. Had dinner at 7 pm--about 100 grams worth of protein. I checked my weight and I had lost 4 lbs in 5 days!. Now I just had my first meal of the day--- a can of tuna, two cans of sardines, a tomato, and half and apple. I like IF!

[Feelix]

ok- I have a question- Can you drink tea on an IF?

[Mitra]

There isn't a lot of study data on intermittent fasting in humans. Dr Mike's blogs referred to one or two studies, but it's pretty much an experimental thing, so there aren't really hard and fast rules. If you drink your tea without milk or caloric sweeteners, then there'd be no reason you couldn't drink it while you were fasting. At least one of the studies had people eating just a few hundred calories on alternate days, and whatever they wanted in between. They showed quite a lot of benefit compared to the control group, so I'd assume that the few calories in tea even with milk and/or sweetener would still give you a lot of the benefits. There aren't any rules, I'm afraid, you can do it however you want - no food some days, one meal a day, high cal/low cal days ...

[Got2BThin]

WTG, lczeledoc!!

I began intermittent fasting yesterday. I am so stuck in a weight loss stall, it's not funny :confused:

I read the blog entry, too and remembered that at my lowest adult weight, when losing a few lbs was still effortless...I was basically eating lunch only. Sometimes I had a small breakfast of coffee and cereal. Lunch was out to a large seafood buffet place, and boy did I eat! But then that was it, no dinner.

This may be what my body wants, a short time out, followed by a good hearty meal every couple days.

I've started with Dr. Eades timing recommendation. Large dinner last night @ 6 pm, nothing til today at 6 pm. I'm having a large crabmeat salad followed by a caprese salad (mozzarella & fresh garden tomatoes). If I have room I may indulge in a small cup of custard which I made earlier in anticipation of a full meal for the first time in a couple months :)

Then I'll have nothing til breakfast tomorrow. It's not bad so far! Forces me to drink lots of water, which is a good thing.

Luck to both of us :)

[lczeledoc]

Hello,

I modified my diet. I only have two big meals a day (no snacks). One around 10:30--1100 am and the other at around 7:00--7:30 pm. My concern is that IF might lead to loss of LBM. It is hard to consume the required amount (for my 188 lb LBM) of protein at one sitting. I am not losing weight at a a fast rate, but I am not in a hurry!. This is a lifestyle for me now. I have noticed that my pant size has dropped faster than my weight. The weight loss seems to go in spurts. I'd hover around a certain weight for a couple of weeks, and then I'll drop 3-4 punds. Once you have become acclimated to using fat as your preferred source of fuel you don't feel so hungry anymore.

[maxlharris]

Am always curious about IF (from an academic stand point). Curious as to whether it really works over the long haul (Dr. Mike and Randy have seemed to say that what they lose on IF, they put back, roughly, as soon as they stop the F part). I dunno. I remain in the quest for the forever sustainable. I don't think this is it.

[Mitra]

I remain in the quest for the forever sustainable. I don't think this is it.

It certainly wasn't something I could sustain, but some people seem to be quite happy with it.

[WakefieldWendy]

I couldn't do this long term either, but what I'm going to take from this discussion is that it is OK to not eat if I'm not hungry. Usually that isn't a whole day, but I often skip 1 or even 2 meals in a day on the weekends.

[Mitra]

That's what I learned, too, Wendy. That missing the odd meal isn't the end of the world, especially at times when I'm eating more than usual, like when we're staying with my parents.

[lczeledoc]

IF all the time would not work for me either. But ocasionally it is OK. On weekends, for example. WEs are the time to do my personal business and chores and sometimes it is a hasle to stop to eat. If I am involved in a house project, I might not eat at all until the evening. I do not get really that hungry.

I think two big meals a day (morning and evening) is more in tune with what our paleo ancestors did and traditional hunter/gatherer societes do (except, when they had to IF out of necessity).

[alex57]

I too was comfortable eating just two meals a day. However, found that this made it difficult to get all my required proteins in without feeling stuffed. Often calories were a bit too low. Being female might come into play.
Had no problems with hunger and did IF 24/24 several times.

Am now trying to eat a light breakfast and regular lunch and dinner. I usually keep my eating sessions 5 hours apart. Read somewhere that was beneficial. Don't know if it is true or not but I normally am not hungry before then. Will IF some, perhaps once a week or so, just to see how I feel.

[maxlharris]

Strange. After my initial water drop, my best period of loss, I was eating five-six meals a day, like this:
Shake
Bar
Lunch
(Almonds)
Dinner
(Cheese)

With Almonds and Cheese optional on pretty much any day. Never missed both, but sometimes had both.

[Eddie Friedman]

Please see www.fast-5.com for an approach I have been enjoying for several months.

All the best,

Eddie

[maxlharris]

Hi Eddie,

I'm not a moderator here or anything, but I think your ad doesn't fall under anything related to the protein power lifestyle, since you can eat "whatever" on the Fast-5 system. That's not protein power. I'm sure the community would appreciate it if you kept it on topic and didn't try to shill what is essentially a competing product to that of our hosts, the Drs Eades.

[Kristine]

[delurk] http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/character/character0234.gif

I've been 'officially' (nothing caloric for at least 15 hrs) IFing for just a few days, but prior to that, I'd have my morning coffee, then wait until I felt good and hungry before I'd eat. I transitioned from being a grazer to a "2 squares" pattern when I had braces on my teeth a few years ago. The habit stuck. IF makes sense to me.

I'll be interested to see how more research in this area pans out.

To defend poor Eddie a bit there, I think the Fast-5 e-book is worth a gander. It's free; and it's short, sweet and to-the-point. The author doesn't recommend any particular eating plan, so it's Protein Power if you want it to be. He keeps his discussion mainly to the pattern of 19/5 IF.

Cheers!
Kristine

[amscray]

Hmm. I've been away for a few years, stopping the plan and getting disheartened after a particularly debauched evening at a Chinese buffet, but I've noticed that people tend to be a bit more defensive than before. Information is information. When something competes, it's an opportunity to show what's good, what's not, and see if there's anything worth incorporating into what you're doing or just trash. One important component of debate is to include the arguments of the opposition, you know.

At any rate, does anyone have any links to studies on this handy? If not I'll sort through Pubmed and such to see what's out there when I'm not so sleepy.

Heh, now that I think about it, all I've had today were some coldcuts with blue cheese dressing. I think I'll promise myself some tea and half an avacado (giant Flordia ones... mmm) if I go get the laundry done.

Good Luck!
Bren

[Gaelen]

At any rate, does anyone have any links to studies on this handy? If not I'll sort through Pubmed and such to see what's out there when I'm not so sleepy.

There isn't much in the way of published studies. Dr. Mike mentioned a couple in his blog several months ago...mainly studies that focused on overweight mice (mice which are bred to enhance the gene they carry for obesity.)

'three square meals and a snack' is a largely western custom; other cultures don't eat on that particular pattern. But there are a lot of studies which illustrate that eating more often in smaller quantities tends to boost metabolism more effectively than sustained fasting. YMMV.

Good luck with your PubMed searches; share what you find.

[Mitra]

I think Dr Mike's blog had a reference to a Spanish study where people (not mice) ate reduced calories one day (about half normal) and ate freely the next day.

[Viking Dan]

You can look for studies on the effects of Ramadan fasting.

Also, Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/1/69)

Effects of Intermittent Fasting on Serum Lipid Levels, Coagulation Status and Plasma Homocysteine Levels (http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=ANM2005049002077)

Effect of intermittent fasting and refeeding on insulin action in healthy men.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16051710&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

Energy intake, meal frequency, and health: a neurobiological perspective.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16011467&ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

Glucose tolerance and skeletal muscle gene expression in response to alternate day fasting.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15833943&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

[Eddie Friedman]

Hi Eddie,

I'm not a moderator here or anything, but I think your ad doesn't fall under anything related to the protein power lifestyle, since you can eat "whatever" on the Fast-5 system. That's not protein power. I'm sure the community would appreciate it if you kept it on topic and didn't try to shill what is essentially a competing product to that of our hosts, the Drs Eades.

Hi Max,

Your loyalty to the good Drs. Eades is commendable. I have great admiration and respect for them and their work. I appreciate that they are our hosts and I am sensitive to behaving in a manner that honors them.

I have NO economic affiliation with Fast-5. Kristine summed up well some essential points:"I think the Fast-5 e-book is worth a gander. It's free; and it's short, sweet and to-the-point. The author doesn't recommend any particular eating plan, so it's Protein Power if you want it to be. He keeps his discussion mainly to the pattern of 19/5 IF".

So much is lost on the discussion forum exchanges, wherein text lacks the nuance of in-person communication. Use of words like "ad" and "shill" struck me as having a hostile tone.

I was, in a good spirit, offering another resource for those considering IF. Personally, I follow a mostly paleo/LC approach to IF, and I found many of the suggestions in Fast-5 to be helpful.

I believe in his IF blog posts, Dr. Michael Eades discussed how to some extent IF was "forgiving" (my term, not his,) of higher carb intake, so while I was not promoting "what is essentially a competing product" as you wrongly (IMHO,) stated, from a business perspective, I believe your "accusation" is wrong as well from a medical/nutritional/scientific perspective as well. (Further supported by Kristina's point that Fast-5 does not advocate a particular approach to eating other than meal timing.)

Admittedly, my initial brief post had the "flavor" and look that some spammers use on discussion forums. Mine however was was in good faith and in keeping with the spirit, as I understand it, of this forum. (Moderator(s), please correct me if I'm mistaken and/or if I've transgressed.)

Max, have you looked at the Fast-5 site and/or book ? If not, I think it was at the very least premature to post as you did. If you did look at those resources before posting, please explain your assertions, re: "ad", "shill" "competing product", etc.

As far as your statement, "I'm sure the community would appreciate it if you kept it on topic," please explain how was my post inconsistent with a thread entitled "Intermittent Fasting"? Again, as Kristina pointed out, "He[Fast-5's Dr. Herring,] keeps his discussion mainly to the pattern of 19/5 IF."

I would appreciate hearing the views of "the Community" on this.

All the best,

Eddie

[maxlharris]

Eddie,

I'm sorry. I have wronged you.

I did look at the site before posting. I didn't read the book. I'm not that interested in IF and have other stuff on my reading plate.

I don't need to defend the use of "ad." You posted a link to a site with a product. That's advertising. It may not be company endorsed, it may not be paid, and it may not be for a dollar value product, but it was an endorsement meant to get people to look at a product. I'm unclear on how this isn't advertising.

Competition isn't only for cash resources. There are other resources to compete for, including mind space and time.

Shill was wrong. I suppose I could have used "pitch," "work," or a billion other words either more or less offensive. No damage, no damage.

Your original post was written, as you admit, much like that of a spam artist. I don't want to get all, "I post more than you" or "I've been here for a long time," but your original post was one of your very first, and, well, that's spammish too. Those of us who draw a lot of value from this community are, I would hope understandably, protective of it. It is a great community.

I'm sorry you felt wronged.

[Eddie Friedman]

Eddie,

I'm sorry. I have wronged you. [Post should end here.:cool:]

Still, no worries. ( My son's middle name is Max, so I have a soft spot.:) ) We ( I project my goals onto the group,) are all here to learn, yes ?

I did look at the site before posting. I didn't read the book. I'm not that interested in IF [Why post on a thread entitled "Intermittent Fasting" then? Was it just to fill a self-appointed "policing" function, notwithstanding your assertion that you are not a moderator ? :D ]
and have other stuff on my reading plate. Like what ?

I don't need to defend the use of "ad." True. You posted a link to a site with a product. That's advertising. Only in an archaic sense of the word, IMHO. It may not be company endorsed, it may not be paid, and it may not be for a dollar value product, but it was an endorsement meant to get people to look at a product. I'm unclear on how this isn't advertising.

I think the common understanding of "advertising", is that it is intended to persuade consumers to purchase, ie; "give money consideration for," goods and/or services. As I was "pointing" to relevant free information, ( and not a free offer to entice a hoped for sale,) I think your use of the word is, at the very least, strained, if not entirely erroneous. Under your definition, "Hey, watch out ! That car is speeding toward you !" is not a warning, but an "advertisement" for the car.:eek:

Competition isn't only for cash resources. There are other resources to compete for, including mind space and time. IMHO, this expresses a VERY parochial point of view. "Links" are a significant aspect of the interweb (:p) Just yesterday, Dr. Michael Eades blog had a link to a young girl playing violin. Was that an "ad" ? Was it "competing" with the main thrust of the particular entry, which was on "Eat less, exercise more".

Shill was wrong. [This paragraph should end here.]I suppose I could have used "pitch," "work," or a billion other words either more or less offensive. No damage, no damage. The second sentence dilutes the first sentence entirely. Not any one of a billion words conveys the same meaning, "more or less". "Share" or "offer" would have been closer in capturing the intent of my post than the (IMO,) still offensive, "pitch", etc.

Your original post was written, as you admit, much like that of a spam artist. I don't want to get all, "I post more than you" or "I've been here for a long time," (Let me bow down before you O' Great One ! :rolleyes: :D)but your original post was one of your very first, and, well, that's spammish too. Those of us who draw a lot of value from this community are, I would hope understandably, protective of it. It is a great community.

I'm sorry you felt wronged.FWIW, and this is OT, "sorry you felt..." is not, IMO, really apologizing. A "proper" apology states, "I'm sorry I did X..." which in this case would be, I'm sorry I CAUSED you to feel X. In other words, a "proper" apology is for YOUR conduct, NOT for MY feelings. If you are sorry that I felt a certain way, what are you really "sorry" about ?:crybaby:

Anyway Max, I am here to learn. I look forward to reading your posts and learning from you in the future.

All the best,

Eddie

[maxlharris]

Hrm. Much to discuss. I will keep it to the core stuff.

Currently reading:
"Government Failure vs. Market Failure" by Clifford Winston (available for free on the web, you can google for it)
"Chuck Klosterman IV"
Next in the queue:
The Great New York Sports Debates
Framework
and something about executive recruiters.

We can dance around ad, marketing, inform, for weeks. I called it as I saw it. You disagree. We don't see eye to eye. This is life in the big city. I'm sorry we don't agree. I don't know that you don't have a commercial interest in the 19-5 fasting plan. I'm beginning not to care.

Since Dr. Eades pays the bills on the site, I'm sure he can post whatever he likes to wherever that goes. It's his nickel and anything comparison with what he posts is a very disingenuous false equivalence.

My final sentence was completely truthful. I'm sorry you felt wronged. I'm still sorry that you feel put out. I still don't know you and I still don't know that you aren't related to the site that you linked to. I don't believe there is any way you can prove that, since it is essentially a negative. So, I'm sorry I have been interpreted as I have been. I'm sorry you are taking it hard. I'm sorry you feel bad. All truthful, none 'proper' apologies. I will say, I am sorry that I entered this portion of the conversational thread. You may rest assured, you will not hear further from me on this topic. If you have stuff in other topics, I will be sure to respond as if this has never happened.

Welcome to the group. It's a wonderfully supportive group.

[Eddie Friedman]

Hey Max,

Cool ! It's all good ! ...and every other applicable slang cliche' :D My skin has not thinned, ( slowed rate of aging I hope :)) to the point where I'd take offense. Anyway, I get that your original intent was to be protective of a nice community when you likely (wrongly) perceived me as a "creep" riding into town. I was just having some fun in my replies. I hope you are similarly, joyfully, surfing the waves, of our little corner of the vast internets ocean.

I wish you well in your nutrition, health and overall goals. I'm glad to be here.

BTW, you don't have to ever believe me, of course, but I am chuckling at the idea that I am "connected" with...uhh....I won't even mention the (IF)site's name. My "connection" is limited to the fact that I read the book and it eased my starting and adhering to IF.

To finally get back on topic...

I have been IFing since 2.27.07. I have been following a predominantly paleo/LC approach, albeit with occasional dairy and rare departures (Mostly "Purist" very infrequent "Hedonist", eg; a bite of cake at my sons' birthday party, etc.) I enjoy the Paleo/LC - IF approach greatly.

All the best,

Eddie

[soopy]

Well Eddie, since you asked for a response from 'the community,' FWIW I'm totally in your corner, and BTW, nice defense.

To get back to the original topic, this board is not too enthusiastic about IF. In fact, a previous thread relating to IF was relegated to the Off Topic Community Discussions. For anyone who really is interested I would recommend anyone thinking of trying IF to read Dr. Eades several posts on the subject, including comments if you have the time. There's lots of good info there. I can say that it is totally sustainable and whether it 'works' depends on what you want it to do. We have been following IF on a day on/day off pattern for nearly a year. The only thing that would make it difficult would be lots of conflicting social committments (which is what Dr. Eades claimed caused them to stop). We do continue to eat low carb, but admittedly are more relaxed about higher carbs. Most of the purported benefits are not anything that can be readily assessed. DH has lost weight, and I have maintained (ie I've not lost muscle mass I can't afford to lose). Other than that I guess we are just trusting that, for instance, we have increased our BDNF!

[Eddie Friedman]

Hi Soopy,

Thank you for your kind words.

My understanding of Dr. M. Eades posts was that he viewed IF favorably.
( Said posts have echoed quite a bit on the web's various IF sites.) As such, I'm surprised at the "unenthusiastic status" of same here. Hmmmm????

I assume "DH" is someone close to you, yes ? If you will please be so kind, what is "BDNF" ? ( I ask these questions because I want to fully understand your post.)

I initially lost 10 lbs, and in what I understand is unusual, I've gained them back. I find IF to be convenient, a way for me to "control" somewhat compulsive overeating tendencies and (hopefully,) a life extension strategy.

At the risk of being "called names" :crybaby: here is a (soon to launch,) site I just learned of today. http://www.theiflife.com/ I am excited to see how this groundswell of IF interest develops.

(BTW, I found out about Protein Power LifePlan via another forum. That forum also led me to Dr. M. Eades blog. That blog led me here. I have now posted links to 2 other sites. I learned of those 2 by links I saw elsewhere. I guess that's partly why they call it "the web". Information is interconnected. Not hoarded. I have learned a great deal being referred from one source to another on the internet. I believe posting links, wherein no commercial interest is involved, -or depending upon forum policy, even if it is, as long as same is disclosed- constitutes "information empowerment". I have no interest in the site I just posted about, but I'm sharing it here the same way I would if I was sitting in my living room with a bunch of friends. If I am off base, out of line, etc., someone please give me a reality check. I do wish to enhance the community by my presence, not violate taboos. "Always leave a place better than you found it," is a sentiment I love.)

All the best,

Eddie

[maxlharris]

I initially lost 10 lbs, and in what I understand is unusual, I've gained them back.

My understanding, from reading accounts of IF'ing (including Dr. Eades own personal) is that this is not particularly uncommon. That's just an observation based on reports, yours now included. If I recall correctly, Ottawa, on this board, who IFs intermittently, reports that he loses, then puts right back whatever he lost when he goes back. Dr. Eades blog post from the other day, about eat less, exercise more, would seem to maybe be on topic.

FWIW: I subscribe to the "It's your science experiment" point of view. If you think fasting is a worthwhile experiment, go on with it. Just keep a good record of your results so you can be accurate in your assessment. Or don't. It's your experiment. I like how my year of PPLP has gone and I like how eating 4-6 meals per day works for me. That's my experiment. No hostility.

FWIW2: IF as interval fitness (the top line on the IFLife site) is something I'm a big fan of, though not doing currently. I think High Intensity Intervals are gold for fat burn without muscle loss.

FWIW3: Eddie, I think you're fine, vis-a-vis linking. I think my reaction was to a product site. Another blog without a sales mechanism is fine in my book, whatever that counts for. Thanks for sharing the info.

Last thing: There have been several threads on IF'ing and Thin So Fast, which is the only Eades book that talks directly about IF. I don't own it, so I cannot say what it says, but there was discussion before. I dunno about an IF post being moved to off-topic. But, I don't always pay close attention.

[Eddie Friedman]

My understanding, from reading accounts of IF'ing (including Dr. Eades own personal) is that this is not particularly uncommon. That's just an observation based on reports, yours now included. If I recall correctly, Ottawa, on this board, who IFs intermittently, reports that he loses, then puts right back whatever he lost when he goes back. Dr. Eades blog post from the other day, about eat less, exercise more, would seem to maybe be on topic.

Well, what I find "interesting" is that I have been IFing every day since 2.27. ( Admittedly, that may not make it "I", but I think as the term is used, it is. In other words, I have been fasting approx. 19 hours every day.) So its not that I re-gained the weight when I stopped IFing. Notwithstanding Dr. Eades recent "Eat less, exercise more" blog post, which I need to get a better understanding of, I was doing a lot more exercise-volume wise- ie; walking ~5 miles per day in the time period that the weight came off. I stopped walking and the weight slowly returned.

FWIW: I subscribe to the "It's your science experiment" point of view. If you think fasting is a worthwhile experiment, go on with it. Just keep a good record of your results so you can be accurate in your assessment. Or don't. It's your experiment. I subscribe to a similar POV.

I like how my year of PPLP has gone and I like how eating 4-6 meals per day works for me. GREAT ! That's my experiment. No hostility. Nah, I'm happy that you have something that works for you ! Funny, I was reading at another site recently ( Yahoo! Groups Fasting forum,) and someone posted about how most people are very defensive about their WOE. The person posting wondered "aloud" whether that sort of defense mechanism about one's WOE had an evolutionary basis.

FWIW2: IF as interval fitness (the top line on the IFLife site) is something I'm a big fan of, though not doing currently. I think High Intensity Intervals are gold for fat burn without muscle loss.

FWIW3: Eddie, I think you're fine, vis-a-vis linking. I think my reaction was to a product site. Don't see it as a "product" as its free, but I'm O.K. with being done on that topic. that Another blog without a sales mechanism is fine in my book, whatever that counts for. The IF one that's coming just may have a commercial leaning, I don't know. Thanks for sharing the info. Your welcome ! As I've said, we're here to learn by sharing information, yes ?

Last thing: There have been several threads on IF'ing and Thin So Fast, which is the only Eades book that talks directly about IF. I don't own it, so I cannot say what it says, but there was discussion before. I dunno about an IF post being moved to off-topic. But, I don't always pay close attention.

Well, my "last thing", even though I lost weight and gained it back, I think I'm somewhat leaner than when I started. I'm 5'11", 179lbs. At 169 my wife thought I was getting too "skinny". At my current weight, I'm certainly trim. I like being thin, but don't want to be rail thin. That can be a tough call. As I understand it, while maintaining muscle is important, weighing less is healthier.

I've done the multiple meals sort of thing. In addition to other reasons, I prefer the simplicity and convenience of IF. Doing multiple meals kept me constantly thinking about and being involved with food. Now I can focus on other stuff all day until I'm ready to relax and enjoy a really substantial meal.

All the best,

Eddie

[Gaelen]

Hmm...guidelines?
I guess that would be my cue.

Soopy, I think your perception that this board is 'hostile' to IF is just a tad oversensitive. What this board isn't and can't really try to be is the second home of any and everyone who thinks they have a version of IF that is the way, truth and life. There are other boards and groups for that. This board was set up to help people understand and work out Protein Power. That's not intended to be hostile...it's the mission statement, it's why this board exists.

That said, one of the early threads about IF was designed to be a reporting-in place for people who were trying it, and it WAS moved to Community Conversations for a few reasons:

1) Intermittent fasting isn't Protein Power, which is this board's WOE topic IF *is* off-topic in that context. Exit to Community Conversations.

2) Newbies tend to be confused/overwhelmed by Protein Power basics, and those more experienced with the plan tend to think they can or should tweak it to resolve their own issues with it, rather than just follow it and let their bodies improve on their *bodies'* time tables. We didn't want to confuse newbies with other people's science experiments. Sharing is great...confusion isn't so great.

IFing at this point IS, basically, other people's science experiments. As this little discussion illustrates, there are as many perceptions of how to do it as there are people. I've had to fast for medical reasons off and on for the last three years. Gotta tell ya, medically (and scientifically, according to the few studies which have been done), 19 hours without eating doesn't really qualify as intermittent fasting. Eating on odd days (1, 3, 5) and fasting on even days (2, 4, 6) is a pattern--not intermittent (i.e. truly unpredictable) fasting. On chemo, you 'fast' because some days you just don't feel like eating...and other days, you do. And trust me, there's little if any pattern. And then the docs toss in a test for which you need to be NPO (nothing by mouth, not even water) for 8-12 waking hours...and of course, you didn't eat overnight, either. THAT is truly 'intermittent' fasting...and it wreaked absolute havoc on my metabolism. My body is *still* relearning what it used to understand about food, hunger, insulin production and release, etc. Granted, my science experiment is a heckuva lot more complex than most peoples'....but my results do not support the benefits of IF at all relative to control of hunger and eating habits and weight.

Eddie...'while maintaining muscle is important, weighing less is healthier' has some limits, the chief one being: unless you're a woman. Then, it is FAR more important to maintain muscle, and weighing less/too little can actually be dangerous.

Phase I of Protein Power is relatively cut and dried. As a long-time instructor of many different venues, I'll stand up for the idea that when people are learning something new, most of them are enormously helped by first getting an understanding of the basics before they begin improvising. The ones who immediately want to tweak and improvise generally don't stick with their new thing long enough to actually move into long-term learning. Another way to put it is 'the fun is in the fundamentals.'

Just because Dr. Mike mentioned IF in his blog and played with it for awhile and brought the science he could find up for discussion in his blog doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate to focus on an IF discussion here which is a place intended for Protein Power support. Most people have enough to wrap their heads around just controlling carbs and understanding that they really truly *need* protein and that fat isn't the devil.

I've been really, really busy since end of May with a software project, which means some days I don't get to the front end of the board. I can't and don't always read every thread. I probably would have moved THIS thread to a forum lower down on the list, because to be honest, it doesn't really belong in 'Making Protein Power work 24/7.' Intermittent Fasting *isn't* Protein Power.

As for links...if they're commercial, they're advertising. That's not sharing, it's promoting something. All of that information is in the 'Getting Started' forums.

BTW, Eddie...welcome in. ;)

[Ogden]

So I guess my question would be; Where you you prefer this topic to be discussed on this forum?

[Eddie Friedman]

Hi Gaelen,

Thank you for the warm welcome.

I must confess, I did not read the "Getting Started" areas. I just barged in.:o I apologize for any protocol / etiquette that I violated.

I will read those ("Getting Started",) areas and from now on I will post within the guidelines of this great community/ resource.

What you wrote about IF not being PP, and the preferred placement of such posts makes total sense to me.

I understand as well your point about Dr. Mike's blog not being the forum.

Thanks for the time, care and attention you put into your post.

All the best,

Eddie

[Gaelen]

So I guess my question would be; Where you you prefer this topic to be discussed on this forum?

Honestly, Ogden? I'd prefer it be discussed in Community Conversations.
If the person who is doing IF is *also* controlling carb intake, the discussion *might* fit into one of the Protein Power Living forums. For instance, if the science of IF and the published articles were what people wanted to discuss, and they were limiting carbs, getting their protein minimum on an averaged-over-time-basis and just skipping meals, that discussion isn't incompatible with PP. It might fall under "How do you PP?" or even "The Science of PP."

However, most of the IF accounts I've read are from people who skip meals for X period of time and then eat unrestrictedly with little or no attention to protein minimums or carb limits. That's IF out of the context of Protein Power, and IMO is more appropriate for an off-topic area where it doesn't confuse the people who are trying to figure out how to follow Protein Power.

Keep in mind that the Drs. Eades aren't, either one of them, aiming for weight loss or lipid profile improvement or insulin resistance reversal. Mike was toying with IF because the idea intrigued him...not to drop any weight. So if IF doesn't improve his weight or messes with his eating habits, no harm no foul. But many of the people who read and post here ARE aiming at weigth control, lipid improvement, and reversal of insulin resistance. They're working on correcting eating habits which got them to a place that compromises their health. Even the Drs. Eades acknowleged that IF might not be the way to go for the goal of correcting bad eating habits.

Clear? maybe not? we evolve as we go, so I hope this helps.
And welcome in!

[Ottawa]

Honestly, Ogden? I'd prefer it be discussed in Community Conversations.

However, most of the IF accounts I've read are from people who skip meals for X period of time and then eat unrestrictedly with little or no attention to protein minimums or carb limits. That's IF out of the context of Protein Power, and IMO is more appropriate for an off-topic area where it doesn't confuse the people who are trying to figure out how to follow Protein Power.

Keep in mind that the Drs. Eades aren't, either one of them, aiming for weight loss or lipid profile improvement or insulin resistance reversal. Mike was toying with IF because the idea intrigued him...not to drop any weight. So if IF doesn't improve his weight or messes with his eating habits, no harm no foul. But many of the people who read and post here ARE aiming at weigth control, lipid improvement, and reversal of insulin resistance. They're working on correcting eating habits which got them to a place that compromises their health. Even the Drs. Eades acknowleged that IF might not be the way to go for the goal of correcting bad eating habits.

In both the Eades' blog and other journal/science based articles it does cover "weight control, lipid improvement, and reversal of insulin resistance" with the benefits listed in those blogs/forums.
Initially some of those doing IF and even the Eades' by their menus tried an open field of foods yet are now endoring it (IF) while following PP basics as far as carbs and protein levels are concerned.
Many of the athletic boards cover it as well now, relating to endurance and increased protein/nutrient absorbtion. Some of the health based board get into the improved immune system, and medical fixes related to eating this way.

I find it annoying that to take an active part in IF postings or Challenges I have to go to another board when the Eades both practice IF weekly as well as missing meals regularly in favor of eating when they feel the need to do so.

[daus_n_ny]

I have reached a plateau after about 1 month and have just begun doing IF . . . skipping breakfast and lunch and only eating between 5-10pm. My ECC goal is to be below 30 and my calories have been around 1500. The last three days I haven't been that hungry during the day and I love having an evening meal where I don't have to worry as much about calories and carbs.

Is this healthy long term? I would like to do this about 5 days a week if it continues to be this easy. Also, I have 30 more lbs to loose.

Any input would be great. Thanks.

[maxlharris]

Hiya,

If you were doing the diet for a month, then plateaued for a couple days, this is not really a stall, a plateau, or even a slow down. It's pretty typical that you slow down after the first few weeks. You run out of very easily shed water and loose fat pounds around that time and really get to fat as fuel.

As to the health of IF long term, there's no reason to take three meals a day. There are good reasons to eat in the morning. There are good reasons to eat a few hours before bed. But, there are some decent effects you get from not eating but one or two meals a day. Mileage varies and there is a ton of literature on the web on this subject.

As to your weight, you probably have 30 lbs that might be loose. I'm sure you'd like to lose them, rather than have them hang around all loose. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, check a dictionary. Loose is not the word you mean. You mean to use lose. Nothing personal, just a pet peeve.

[Ottawa]

I have reached a plateau after about 1 month and have just begun doing IF . . . skipping breakfast and lunch and only eating between 5-10pm. My ECC goal is to be below 30 and my calories have been around 1500. The last three days I haven't been that hungry during the day and I love having an evening meal where I don't have to worry as much about calories and carbs.

Is this healthy long term? I would like to do this about 5 days a week if it continues to be this easy. Also, I have 30 more lbs to loose.

I have been doing IF just over 4 months and had lost 16 pounds in under 4 months. I jumped a bit over the holidays but found recovery with IF a little faster. My average daily caloric load is 1480 compared to 2200 pre IF. As long as the fast does not exceed 48 hours there is no loss of muscle mass. Although the weight loss on IF does not correlate directly to calories not consumed, it does improve weight loss for those who have slowed down or stalled on LC alone. As to the weight loss, the body becomes more efficient at using available energy and the positive difference seems to be made up in other ways. My wife is now doing IF just one day a week and notices the benefits (she does a 24 hour Bragg Fast with just distilled water) and has decided to keep doing it. In Studies on Ramadan and even Mormons fasting one day a month correlations have been found in improved heart health and less inflammation.

As Max mentions, I would not count a month as a stall, although when pushing to lose those pounds it seems a long time.

The benefits I have noticed are ...
Lowest BP in 20 years
Lowest B/G since starting PP/LC
Weight loss after several months of stall
Increased understanding about why and what I eat (likely the greatest improvement)
A slightly improved performance in sporting events by not eating prior to event.
A move to whole foods as I came to appreciate eating meals more.
A grocery bill that is down over 15%.
I don't graze any more. I used to snack often on LC foods even though I was not actually hungry.


Here are some links relating to IF. There is a lot of information as well in following through the comments/replies on these blogs/sites.

Fast Way To Better Health - Dr Michael Eades (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2006/09/13/fast-way-to-better-health/)
Protein Power versus Intermittent Fasting - Dr Michael Eades (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2006/09/19/protein-power-verses-intermittent-fasting/)
Retune the Body with a Partial Fast - Mark Mattson (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16513299)
Art DeVaney on IF (http://www.arthurdevany.com/2006/12/intermittent_fa_2.html)
Mark Sisson - Is Intermittent Fasting Healthy? (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting/)
Top Ten Diet Fallacies - Ori Hofmekler (http://www.warriordiet.com/diet/top-ten-diet-fallacies)
Warrior Diet (An IF style eating plan) FAQ's (http://www.warriordiet.com/faq)

In a quote by Karen, an avid IF follower that journals daily...

Now the big question, how has IF affected my rate of weight loss. Since I lose in whooshes and stalls, I felt at least 3 months of consistent IF would be needed before I could draw any type of conclusion about that. But here I am at 5 months, and I will compare the past 5 months to the 5 months immediately prior to that (I have been low carbing consistently for 16 months.)

IF is meant to work as a form of caloric restriction, but without the caloric restriction, and in a format that does not slow metabolism.

My average daily calories with IF is around 1500-1600, with ratios of around 5% carb, 20% protein, 70% fat. It was about the same before IF.

In the past 21 weeks of LC + IF, I have lost 32 pounds.
In the 21 weeks immediately prior to that, of LC only, I lost 26.5 pounds.

So IF seems to have resulted in an extra 5.5 pounds of weight loss over 5 months, or .26 pounds a week, which is probably not statistically significant...

However, I feel my body is recomposing itself; the greater rate of loss is fat. I have no proof of that, I just feel it. I do know I don't look as saggy and baggy this time around as in previous times I lost over 100 pounds. My belly apron is definitely smaller this time around, even though I'm 10 years older and certainly no more elastic. My midriff is gone, I have a waist 8 inches smaller than my bust and hip measurements. Her success seems to come from commitment, keeping a close watch on her carb window and journaling. Most successful IF followers are over 10 ECC/meal but under 50/day. A longer fasting window 16-24 determines rate of weight loss as well with most journalers finding that the increased loss comes better as you push the window beyond 16 hours.

Most people find it easiest to begin with a smaller fasting window and gradually work it up to avoid getting discouraged. "The best fat loss results from a longer and more intermittent fasting protocol. Someone on another (not LC) IF forum mentioned recently that he had read that bodyfat burning begins in earnest after the 18th hr of a fast. Non LC IF'ers will promptly be re storing the break, fasting influx of fat/carbs, so their 'window of bodyfat burning opportunity is very short indeed (and non existent if they are only fasting < 18)(Other than a caloric defecit). But LC IF'ers have a remarkable opportunity to make that post 18 hr fasting time really productive in terms of (body) fatburning."

'Hope this helps.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Under my doctor's supervision, I have been experimenting with IF since mid-December. The doctor himself has been fasting on and off and has read quite a bit of the literature. (I'm blessed with a PP-friendly doc). When I approached him about it, he said he had no problems with my doing it because I am not diabetic. We discussed various formats. I decided to use the pattern the Eades have implemented--skipping 24 hours, but from 6 p.m. to 6 p.m. rather than midnight to midnight. That way I eat breakfast, lunch, and a late afternoon snack one day and then supper and an evening snack the next day. For my schedule, 4 p.m. is a good cut-off time. I am still staying within PP guidelines as far as protein and carbs are concerned.

I like it. I don't have precise numbers because my scale is not very reliable, but it appears I've had a good weight loss this month. Even more important, doing IF has shown me that I don't need to fear hunger. I now view hunger as a friend because for so many years I was never hungry--I just ate because it was "time." This is quite empowering. I am conscious of a comment Mitra made in a previous thread on this subject, however:

I'm not aware of having had particularly disordered eating in the past (apart from a slight tendency to live on wheat and dairy fat :o ) - I've never habitually skipped meals except when I was strongly focussed on something else, and I haven't binged. Even so, this weekend when I was thinking about IF, and when we had a large lunch on Fri, Sat, Sun and Mon, so that dinner really wasn't necessary, I'd find myself wanting to miss the meal to the extent that I was thinking about ways that I could avoid eating without anybody noticing. I found that I was starting to think that eating was "bad" and not eating was "good." I could very easily see how I could develop that in very unhealthy ways. I ate lightly or not at all for breakfast or dinner over the time away, and I don't think that missing the odd meal did me any harm physically - in fact I came out of the weekend feeling well and not over or underfed, but psychologically the feelings weren't ones I wanted to encourage.

I'm still interested to see the research, but I agree with Malcolm's observation that the emotional aspects of eating need to be taken into consideration, too.

I certainly don't want to get into the "eating=bad, not eating=good" mindset. For those of us who are food addicts, I think that simply shifting the addiction to getting empowerment from not eating may be dangerous.

I'll see my doctor next week, get accurate numbers, and then report my progress.

[Gaelen]

It's probably worth it at this point to actually quote from Mike's blog, which Ottawa linked. A lot of people read this board, and sometimes it's easy--too easy--to infer from some of the proponents of IF that the Drs. Eades flat out 'recommend' an IF schedule as a WOE. I think it falls a bit short of a full-scale way-to-diet recommendation on their part. So, in advance of that confusion, from the blog "Protein Power versus Intermittent Fasting" (boldface emphasis is mine--Gaelen):

"Now, based on the IF research data, MD and I are of the opinion that a Protein Power style diet interspersed with a little fasting is probably the optimal diet. We ourselves follow this diet. We eat one meal a day sometimes, a couple of meals others, and sometimes three squares. If we’re not hungry we don’t eat. We try to fight off the culturally induced feelings of, Oh, it’s lunchtime, so I must we must be hungry: let’s eat.

We tried the IF as written up in the post [Fast Way to Better Health] because we wanted to see if there was a particular regimen we could give people wanting to try it out. We know from many years of taking care of people on diets, that dieters want rules. The more we would write our material in such a way as to give patients (and readers) a lot of lee way in how they could prepare their low-carb diets, the more calls we got from these patients asking for us just to give them a set of meal plans. We found that the IF was easiest for us with a 6 PM cutoff; that’s why I described it that way.

There is probably no magic in the 24 hours; who knows, maybe it’s 15 hours. It just isn’t known at this point. I’m firmly convinced, however, that there is an advantage to going without food for periods here and there. I’m convinced for a couple of reasons. First, all the data on IF is pretty persuasive. Second, all the Ornishes, Barnards, Grundys and the other AOE (Architects of the Obesity Epidemic) recommend that we all eat a lot of small meals throughout the day. Given the track records of these people alone, it militates that we should eat large meals separated by long periods of time.

We still fully believe in Protein Power. We haven’t abandoned it in favor of IF. We have added IF to our own lives from time to time, especially if we go off the Protein Power wagon. But, we also IF using strict Protein Power, too, In short, IF is just an adjunct to the Protein Power diet that makes it work better by making it even more like the Paleolithic diet we cut our collective teeth on."

My take-away from this blog, which differs from those who look to it to support their choice to do a regularly scheduled, daily IF regimen, is that:
1 - the Drs. Eades tried an experiment for a measured period which, by their own comments, they are no longer doing regularly
2 - Mike thinks that occasional (but not necessarily constant or scheduled) fasting might be helpful sometimes
3 - the main goal would be to tune in to your own hunger if you have issues with that, and to not sweat missing an occasional meal as long as you don't make stupid food choices when you get hungry (some of us do...)
4 - IF, if used, should be followed in the context of Protein Power...in other words, you still need to control your carbs and get your protein. You can't just create an 'eating window' and then consume whatever high carb foods you want during that period.
5 - the Drs. Eades are not saying that IF is better than Protein Power as it was originally written; Mike in fact makes a point of saying that 'they haven't abandoned Protein Power in favor of IF.'

I think these are important distinctions, especially for those people who are investigating IF in conjunction with Protein Power. A lot of people read the main blog posts, but don't go through all of the comments (and Mike's replies.) It appears from Mike's replies to his various IF posts that he is NOT incorporating a daily scheduled IF into his eating plan any longer; they did scheduled IF only briefly, for about a month. Now, they only fast "from time to time," rather than sticking to the arbitrary schedule they tried to follow in the "Fast Way to Better Health." The reasons Mike gave in his reply to a comment were that they found 'scheduled' IF socially inconvenient. They were experimenting, and once that was done, they went back to the way they typically eat--which some days is three meals, and some days is less.

The Drs. Eades are also on maintenance and have been eating low carb for over a decade, which is not something that a person new to low carbing can necessarily say. They don't have weight to lose, over and above an occasional couple of pounds, and I think it would be fair to say they might not have 'emotional issues with food,' which IS something that contributes to many peoples' starting body weight and to how they handle eating, social situations, and food.

I've had to fast, for medical reasons (cancer treatment) in true 'intermittent' style on many occasions during the last four years.
In my case, 'intermittent' really does mean 'unpredictable', which is more or less what Mike was alluding to when referring to paleo man and his sources of food (or lack thereof.) I had food issues when starting PP that I gradually got under control. The fasting I had to do, if anything, only made those issues and emotional eating situations worse. The loss of hunger I felt was medically induced (chemo nausea) or medically regulated, and resulted in over-hunger when the fast concluded, which was not to my benefit. I've spent most of the last year struggling to regain the place of issue-control that I was in prior to my diagnosis and the fasting that resulted because of continuous treatment and multiple tests which required unpredictable fasting.

I also cannot physically eat large meals, so for me it is optimal to eat smaller carb-controlled meals throughout the day. If I confined myself to an eating window, I would be doing a very severe form of caloric restriction and not doing myself any favors.

IF, like any other dietary recommendation, is not for everyone. And IF alone is not Protein Power. You can do IF within a Protein Power context, but it's not for beginners, and it's not for everyone.

Mileage will vary.

[Mitra]

My personal view is that reactions will be very individual - not for everybody, but it does suit some. I feel good on 3-4 meals per day. Two is just about manageable, but not ideal for me. Some people report finding IF frees them from worrying about food - it made me think about it all the time. My husband is perfectly happy on one meal a day. In fact, I think he gained a hundred plus excess pounds while eating only one meal a day most days, so he might work as an example to show that some people naturally tend to eat that way and are happy doing it, but equally, what you eat in that window still matters in terms of health and weight control.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Thanks for the input on this subject. Actually, I had wanted to discuss it, but I read the earlier thread on the topic and realized it was quite controversial. My intention in replying to this post was not to advocate a position, but simply to reflect what's been going on in my mind.

I did read all the material I could find on this website and then read other research on the topic before I pursued the idea with my doctor.

My reasons for being interested in IF are exactly what you listed, Gaelen.


3 - the main goal would be to tune in to your own hunger if you have issues with that, and to not sweat missing an occasional meal as long as you don't make stupid food choices when you get hungry (some of us do...)
4 - IF, if used, should be followed in the context of Protein Power...in other words, you still need to control your carbs and get your protein. You can't just create an 'eating window' and then consume whatever high carb foods you want during that period.
5 - the Drs. Eades are not saying that IF is better than Protein Power as it was originally written; Mike in fact makes a point of saying that 'they haven't abandoned Protein Power in favor of IF.'


I feel that I have been very out of tune with my own body and its need for nourishment. I'm so used to mindless eating and, as Randy mentioned, found myself grazing on LC food when I wasn't even hungry. I was actually afraid of hunger, often taking legal snacks upstairs with me when I went to our den before going to bed just in case I would get hungry.

I view this as an experiment, not necessarily as a lifestyle, unless it's so effective that I want to continue it. I deeply appreciate the dimension that PP has brought to my understanding of nutrition and would not want to do anything to undermine that. It's not like other "low-carb" programs that only attempt to be quick fixes. One that I looked at is actually an IF program in disguise. It's only low carb in the sense that while you're fasting, you're not eating carbs. But you can eat whatever you want during the one meal you're allowed. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster.

I think you're exactly right on this point--mileage will vary.

[Mitra]

Although it didn't suit me, I know that some people have found IF useful in helping to lower blood glucose levels.

[Ottawa]

I apologize for any discomfort caused by my post. It's obvious from this and other threads on IF (as well as a few other topics over the past months) that certain things are not to be endorsed or discussed here.
That is part of the reason that I do most postings elsewhere concerning anything that does not come directly from the accepted Protein Power books.

I love the Protein Power program and it has worked wonders but find the restrictions on open dialog to be a bit Draconian.

[WakefieldWendy]

This is a very interesting discussion. A few months ago we had a similar discussion and my take-away message from that was simply that it was OK to skip a meal if I didn't feel like it. I could not do serious committed IF for lots of reasons. But, I had been indoctrinated with the "healthy eating is many small meals" mentality and I felt guilty when I ate 1 or 2 meals a day. These discussions changed my thinking on that point.

Ruth, I think listening to your own hunger has got to be a good thing, no matter if you are eating once per day or six times per day. That's why I will never try serious IF, as I just get too hungry and that would feel like not listening to my body. (And like everyone else here, I've got lots of experience at eating for reasons other than hunger). If IF is helping you pay attention to your hunger, I'd say that's a good thing from the psychological perspective, whatever the effect physically.

I have been doing IF just over 4 months and had lost 16 pounds in under 4 months. I jumped a bit over the holidays but found recovery with IF a little faster. My average daily caloric load is 1480 compared to 2200 pre IF. As long as the fast does not exceed 48 hours there is no loss of muscle mass. Although the weight loss on IF does not correlate directly to calories not consumed, it does improve weight loss for those who have slowed down or stalled on LC alone. As to the weight loss, the body becomes more efficient at using available energy [emphasis added by WakefieldWendy] and the positive difference seems to be made up in other ways.

Randy, this is exactly what I would be afraid of. I have proven, while doing low-fat, that I can be 40-50 pounds overweight and not lose weight while eating 1200 calories per day. The very last thing I need is to become more efficient at using available energy!

If we ignore weight loss, but assume, for example, that someone like you could maintain at 2200 pre IF and 1700 IF, why wouldn't I want to consume the higher number of calories. I love food! ;)

[Karole]

Randy, good to see you. I always enjoy your posts and realize you are telling us how it works for you. That doesn't mean it will work for me, but who knows til they try. Hope you will keep posting as we miss you.

I think I might try IF a bit simply because of the results you have had with your blood pressure. If occasional fasting can possibly help me to lower my bp then I will be forever grateful to you for posting that here.

It may help, it may not. But I sure hope it will.

[maxlharris]

Back to IF:

This is confusing. You read things about the importance of breakfast. Of waking up the metabolism to get fat burning going.

Then you read about the benefits to fasting. Including making the metabolism more efficient.

What to believe? Reputable folks on all sides. On the one hand, Eat less frequently, burn more fat. On the other, eat more often, get more thermic effect of food, minimize peaks and valleys, and stay in the sweet spot.

That is what the controversy is. I might try IF, but should I eat breakfast and lunch or lunch and inner in a 18-6 fasting configuration? Can I eat pre-workout, breakfast and lunch? Confusing.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

I agree, Max. I read a lot about it and finally decided the only way I'd know is to try it. It did help that my doctor didn't have any problem with it, at least on a temporary basis.

[Mitra]

I was interested to see this remark from Dr Mike in his response to a comment on his blog article on Low Carb and Lipids:A low-carb diet is kind of a fast without fasting. A couple of papers have shown pretty clearly that the metabolic improvements brought about by fasting come as a result of the carbohydrate restriction, not simply a restriction of food in general or any other macronutrient. So, you get the fasting benefits without the fast when you restrict carbs.

If you're already eating LC, then fasting might be seen as amplifying the effects.

The person he was replying to had made the point that when someone who eats low fat fasts, what they are effectively doing is increasing the proportion of animal fat in their "diet." I know that burning your own fat isn't exactly the same as eating animal fat, there must be a lot of similarities. I just liked the different perspective.

[Ottawa]

Thanks Karole.
I do find this WoE great but do not feel restricted from tweaking. In fact I like to explore facets that I have read about and apply them to how I live and eat. IF was one of those that I may keep for life. As well ... dare I say it ... I am ending a 5 day Bragg's Fast (distilled water) today that I chronicled on another board. It may be my last of that type, though enlightening and positive results.
My wife also fasts one day a week related to her Yoga and spirituality. It is a 24 hour distilled water fast just once a week and would fall under IF or Partial Fasting.

This may get this thread deleted or moved again but to Community Conversations, but this is my day 5 entry for my Water Fast.

Thanks for the tip Fonty and I will do that by breaking my fast today at lunch time (5 days). I have a dodgeball game on Monday and wanted to be back on top for that as well. I will go with the fruit as suggested.


Day 5: given a little early but this will be a full five days by when I "break fast" later today.

Weight: 212 - My lowest in 20 years. Total lost after a rise at Christmas is 9 lbs..
Water: 48 oz.
Activity: None.
B/G: 4.2 (76) lowest in al least 6 years (started monitoring 2002 at 8.0 when I started PP)
Notes: Thinking about food a lot last night but not real hunger. Slept great. Interesting aside ... Libido is the lowest I can remember. Not interested at all. ???
Day Rating (1-10): 9

My Ketones were 110mg/dl the darkest (purple) I have ever had. Urine samples never showed crystalization and did not lighten up as I had thought they would.

Note: This type of fast may be a one time thing to see how it works and whether I could do it. I do not suggest it for anyone but wanted to see my body/mind reaction. Also you do lose a bit of muscle mass with this type of fast along with the fat after 48 hours, and as well I will gain back about half of the weight loss within a few days.
================================================== =====

Wendy,
I enjoy my food much more now that I have to "work" for it by fasting. This was mentioned by Dr. Eades as well. Since going PP/IF I have not bought or had a protein bar or other fake food other than decorative SF wafers on a LC dessert. I eat more whole foods than I did before due to taste and preparation. Although I was a little disappointed that the body becomes more "efficient" with ingested foods, I still lose weight, and have picked up several other benefits as well as breaking a few myths that I held to be true. I never eat before a workout or sporting event. I just have more energy or better performance with less energy devoted to digestion. This is definitely not running on empty since I still seem to have loads of reserve.



Mitra,
Most (almost all reporting) IF'ers do not slow down their metabolism. I don't know the biological mechanics but Dr. Mike stated this as well. The only time I ever did on IF was one time when I moved to 22/2 and when I continued it caught up, possibly due to the LC WoE including healthy fats.

[Mitra]

Mitra,
Most (almost all reporting) IF'ers do not slow down their metabolism. I don't know the biological mechanics but Dr. Mike stated this as well. The only time I ever did on IF was one time when I moved to 22/2 and when I continued it caught up, possibly due to the LC WoE including healthy fats.

Randy, I think it was Wendy who was concerned about slowing metabolism, not me.

[WakefieldWendy]

I have a dodgeball game on Monday and wanted to be back on top for that as well.

Yes you do and you should be in good shape for that! ;) :lol: I'm looking forward to it - there are few things in life that bring out the "play" as much as dodgeball.

Randy, I've heard you report on how good food tastes on IF. I wish you well and am glad you are enjoying it. I am simply saying that I am not up for the deprivation, whatever the rewards! :rolleyes:

[lczeledoc]

With IF I am more in tune with me inner warrior. Working out after not eating for 20 hrs, "kicks it up a notch," I feel more alive, like a hunter going for the kill. I have read that feeling the hunger makes you more active (I feel so), that we are programmed to move (forage) in a fasted stated. After being satiated I want to rest.

[Ottawa]

With IF I am more in tune with me inner warrior. Working out after not eating for 20 hrs, "kicks it up a notch," I feel more alive, like a hunter going for the kill.

I love that analogy.:nod: GIVE ME SOME MEAT!!!:lol:



Thanks for the correction above Mitra.

[Gaelen]

regarding the true (five-day) fast, Ottawa posted:
Also you do lose a bit of muscle mass with this type of fast along with the fat after 48 hours, and as well I will gain back about half of the weight loss within a few days.

So, you fast for an extended time.
You lose weight.
Then you resume a more regular eating pattern.
And you gain back half of what you've lost.
Then you do it again and repeat the cycle.

How, exactly, are the results of fasting different from the results of yo-yo dieting, which is defined as repeatedly restricting intake, losing weight, restoring intake, and gaining some of the weight back? There's plenty of research out there that yo-yo or repetitive dieting creates a dieting cycle that wreaks havoc on metabolisms.

Seems to me that fasting has the potential to create the same kind of lose/gain cycling--Ottawa's report that the weight comes back isn't the first one I've read--and that it's possible that fasting cycling could also create metabolic havoc if it was continued long term. Now we're back in science experiment territory.

Mileage will vary.

[Billie]

Randy I didn't feel the comments were disparaging at all to you, I think everyone is just voicing their own perspective which is what you did, so no harm no foul in my book. And absolutely I don't think the thread would be moved or shut down. IF is just confusing for some people. And as you know this program CAN be confusing for the person who just starts it, you are in the Advanced realm of things but many are not. I also haven't been called draconian in quite awhile, anything but usually! :lol: And darn it all you better not stop posting your thoughts or feelings or desires or needs or I will drive to see my friendly neighbor in the North and whack him in the head!! :tongue:

[Ottawa]

Gaelen,
My prolonged fast was not done for weight loss although it comes with that benefit. I will not regain my previous weight hopefully but with the exception of holidays or surgery have been quite successful at maintaining the loss.

As for the Yo-Yo part, most people do prolonged fasts for reasons other than weight loss.

As for the Experimental part, I consider this whole process as well as PP an experiment in progress. It (LC programs including Protein Power) went against mainstream medical dogma, and and I believe that most people who tried it, did it to see if it actually worked. I believe that most of us "experimented" with various diets/programs/WoE's that failed. I rarely accept something without proving it so yes, I do experiment.

Billie,
This is the third time an IF thread has been challenged and always by the same person. To quote her from an earlier thread, she felt they should be "moved to Community Conversations". I don't mind the policing of appropriate content to the correct forum. I don't even mind the email from here about my Out of Office announcement was annoying last week.
What I do mind is rigid thinking that there is only one way to do Protein Power or any program. It comes awfully close to religious dogma.

We are all adults. If I something irresponsible I would stand accountable. I don't believe that discussing or following ideas presented by the Eades' in any way does that. I can see that Newbies might be confused and those with Eating Disorders could possibly give it a try and fail and be left miserable. I apologize for any who have gone down that path due to my comments.

I also haven't been called draconian in quite awhileYeah ... but it sounds kind of sexy. ;)

[maxlharris]

I'm with Gaelen. When you read the regular reporting of IF'ers (Dr. Eades, Ottawa, others), you see some weightloss, and then the moment they resume eating, it comes back. If there's a belief that it's all water weight if you are doing a few days of fasting then going back to normal (or even PP normal), then there's some decent evidence in support.

As with everything, your body, your science experiment.

[lczeledoc]

Whether IF will help with weight loss depends on other factors, such as total energy consumption and carb consumption. When I was adhering to the 30-40g ECCs a day, I lost weight with IF---5lbs in a month. I then upped my carb consumption and the weight stayed about the same, +/- 2lbs. I think with IF it is a case of three steps forward and two back with weight loss. I am resuming a more strict carb restriction. I'll let you know about the results.

[Vivian]

I tried IF for a couple of days right after Dr. Mike's blog about it. I didn't find it that difficult except that habitual feeling of "I need to eat" at mealtime, just because it was mealtime.

I had thought about trying it again until reading this thread and it made me think that even though I don't think I have major food issues, for me to IF would be more like proving to myself that I could do it - that I would be accomplishing something to last all day without food, and failing if I didn't, like a test of my willpower or something.

It's difficult socially also, my husband does not approve of skipping meals. So I think I'll just stick to the plan for now, but realize that if I'm not hungry, I don't necessarily HAVE to eat because it's mealtime. Besides, I haven't been strict enough with the basic plan in some time, so I need to concentrate on one thing at a time.

[WakefieldWendy]

Randy,

I think you are dead on right that there isn't one way to do this WOE. We are each responsible for our own science experiment, as Max would say. Not only is there unlikely to be one exact WOE that works optimally for everyone on a metabolic/physical level, what is even more important to me is that for most of us, our psychological and emotional responses to eating are complex (and for me at least, somewhere on the path towards disordered). So each one of us needs our own approach that responds to our personal psychological and emotional reality.

To me, there is an overall paradigm that is PP. It includes:
- protein is good for you
- fats are necessary
- processed carbs suck
- some level of carb restriction beyond the typical NA diet is good
- water is good
- exercise, especially weights, are good

To me, if you believe that stuff, you're on my side of the eating universe. You may choose to implement less than 100% of that so that it is "do-able" for you, you may do IF, or be vegetarian, or be an elite athlete whose carb restriction is "high" at 120 ecc per day, if it works for you. For all but the most elite of athletes, or the most screwed up of metabolisms, how the above gets refined should be mostly about what works in terms of your psychological and emotional stuff. I can see IF working for a lot of people there. NEAN (especially on some foods) works for a lot of people. Controlled vacations seems to be working for me. We don't have to agree, and it would be shocking if what worked for me worked for you.

So I guess I'm saying, in summary:

1. Max is right. We are each our own science experiment. And your answer won't necessarily be my answer, beyond an overall paradigm.

2. We are also each our own happiness experiment (or satisfaction, or stick-to-it, or longevity experiment). Finding the right food is a small part of the battle. Finding the right emotional and psychological approach is the big part of the battle. So even if IF was shown to be slightly less than optimal in a pure science perspective, I would still think it was an acceptable choice for someone if they felt it met their psychological or emotional needs.

[maxlharris]

The one thing that I like about Atkins is the attempt (when done properly) in the later phases, to challenge and find the boundaries of your own personal diet, both in carb limit and specific foods. It's not really in PPLP like it is in Atkins New Diet Rev, probably because it's horribly complicated and a bit of a bother. But, the idea there is ultimately, start with this strict diet, limited to things pretty much everyone can handle. Then, expand, slowly, to find out how many carbs you can handle, what sources are not so good for you, etc. Customize. I think people do this naturally, with any diet, anyway. Like I'm reported to say, everyone is conducting their own science experiment and their own research, and they have only themselves as test subjects.

In conclusions: If IF works for you, that's great. If you want to try to do some IF in your PP(LP), that's a good experiment, I guess, if you are interested in heading that way. I think it's a very shaky distinction between IF and skipping meals for caloric restriction, and I can see as it'd be very easy for one to try IF with the intent of reducing calories towards a goal, then going back to normal eating. There's not even a shaky distinction between than and crash dieting or yo-yoing, both of which we're pretty sure are worse than staying overweight. But, if you're clear on what IF is and it's an experiment in a lifestyle choice, good. If you're completely not interested in IF, I think that's fine too. I dunno if anyone is pushing that IF is the true optimum for health. I don't believe it's the one and only paradigm.

[Ottawa]

To me, there is an overall paradigm that is PP. It includes:
- protein is good for you
- fats are necessary
- processed carbs suck
- some level of carb restriction beyond the typical NA diet is good
- water is good
- exercise, especially weights, are good

You got my vote. :)
I might even modify the carb restriction a little tighter but it depends where you are in the program.
Have a great weekend all.

[dvdmon]

Well, here is my take, for what it's worth. I did IF for about a year every day (the style where you fast for 20 hours and then have a 4 hour window). My experience, summarized, are as follows:

After an initial adjustment period of 2-4 weeks, I felt more energy and didn't require as much sleep.

I continued to lose weight, but stalled at a certain point. I was not counting calories, and was relatively happy at the weight I stalled at, about 10lbs above what I feel is an optimal weight for me.

I maintained this weight plus or minus a few lbs for around 8 months that I reained on daily IF. During this time there were periods that I stuck very closely to PP, and other periods where I was not so good :cool:. When I was really bad for a while, I feel as though IF gave me some "protection" against an all-out blow-out, and I was able to reign things back in a bit by recommitting myself to not endulging as much.

I did experience an increase in BP concurrent with my adoption of IF, but I can't tell you whether this relationship was causal or not.

The social aspects of IF are, as has been mentioned, not positive, unless of course you don't tend to eat lunch or breakfast with people anyway, in which case it's not a big deal.

After the break-in period, my relationship with food changed, but it's hard to describe whether it was overwhelmingly positive or not. On the one hand I did not feel hungry or think about food at all during the day, although at night during my "window" I was much more motivated to keep going back to the fridge to look for things that I could eat, since I had been given "permission" to eat whatever I wanted during this period. Now, after dinner, I was generally full, and so I didn't end up going back for lots of food afterwards, but I did WANT to eat more than perhaps I did when I was not IF'ing.

I think all in all, my experiences with IF were positive. Actually, I should say they ARE positive - still. I'll explain. Back in Novembers, I got sick of still seeing high BP numbers and so decided to give IF a rest for a while. I weighed myself a week or so later and found that I had gained about 6 lbs!
So I got very strict with my carbs and even gave breakfast up. I kept track of my weight, but it wasn't seeming to budge. So I instead decided to compromise. Right now I do IF during the weekend and maybe on one day during the week, but 4-5 days during the week, I eat lunch. This allows me to socialize with coworkers, get some of the weight-management and potential health benefits from IF'ing, and also perhaps avoid some of the potential downsides - like BP increase. In general I feel a little better eating two meals per day than I did one, but I don't feel worse on the weekends, I just think having some days where I don't do IF helps overall.

As it pertains to this forum and this discussion, I understands Gaelen's concern about confusing newbies. Randy, I also think you may be taking her words a bit personally. Gaelen is not particularly fond of fasting for a number of reasons and it's fine for her to state her opinion. Fasting is not a good option for anyone and everyone, and because of that I think Gaelen feels she does need to post a qualifying word of caution when these posts do appear to let people know that a) the Eades aren't saying that IF is either a PART of protein power, or a replacement for it, and b) that there are definite caveats to IF. I for one don't mind these discussions so long as people don't take these things personally in either direction. I think it's fine to talk about our experiences, but it's also a good idea to point out that this isn't Protein Power per se, but a tool that some people use which is not for everyone...

[Rhyme'n Reason]

I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't even think IF is something that I want to do day in and day out. For me, it's a tool to help me think about if I am really hungry or just eating out of habit.

So what I'm doing right now is eating generally two meals a day--either breakfast and lunch or lunch and supper. At times, I'll eat three meals or maybe just one--depends if I'm hungry. But at no time do I go over the carb limit for the meal or the day or under my minimum adequate protein. I just think I do better if I don't eat as often, but wait until my body tells me it needs food--a totally new concept for me.

My hunch is that if my body becomes too adjusted to any system, it will adapt and may stall weight loss.

I also think this is not for newbies. Learning to re-think nutrition and unlearn all the falsehoods that have been programmed into our thoughts for so many years takes time. I think you have to be able to run the program on autopilot before it's profitable to try this.

[Gaelen]

For those who missed this in the discussion of Tim Ferriss' blog, Mike has posted some new thoughts about IF in two blog posts he wrote for Ferris on Mar 2 and Mar 3 2008. He references some newer research, and some human studies...and in the last 'graphs of the March 3 site, generally concedes that IF in humans doesn't live up to its promises.

Mike's new thoughts on IF, part 1 (http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/03/02/postponing-death-caloric-restriction-vs-intermittent-fasting-part-1/)

Mike's new thoughts on IF, part 2 (http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/03/03/real-life-extension-caloric-restriction-or-intermittent-fasting-part-2/)

[Mitra]

Or you can read it on the PP site (same article):

Ιntermittent Fasting, Rad or Fad? (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting-rad-or-fad/)

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Very interesting--thanks for posting the link. I'm still waffling about this a bit. I was IFing for a while, but haven't been lately. I did initially see improved weight loss, and I did not gain any of that weight back when I switched back to traditional meals. I am (and will be for a long time) in the weight loss phase of PP, so Dr. Mike's comments about its doubtful use for weight loss concern me.

[maxlharris]

There's the hole in the argument about doing it LC on the feast portion. But, I have found the evidence to be pretty discouraging. As always, it's your science experiment.

[Gabriel Guzman]

There's the hole in the argument about doing it LC on the feast portion. But, I have found the evidence to be pretty discouraging. As always, it's your science experiment.

Care to elaborate on the 'hole'?

Rhyme'n Reason, what do you feel concerned about it? Concerned because it doesn't seem to work?

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Gabe,

I have a lot of weight to lose, enough that many doctors would try to convince me that gastric bypass is my only chance for long term success. Fortunately, my doctor believes in LC eating and feels that if I stick to it, I'll be successful (even though the weight loss is faster with bariatric surgery).

My concern is that I don't want to do anything that will make my body adapt itself to fewer calories. I've been on so many weight loss programs that were at least temporarily successful that I know I've really messed up my metabolism. I lost 83 pounds on PP between 2002 and 2004 and just slowly let myself slide back up. I'm grateful that I have re-lost those pounds and am almost on new ground. I haven't lost much the last few weeks and I'm not sure why. I've toyed with going back to IF for a bit to change things up, but the article by Dr. Mike seems to say to me that IF may not be effective for long term weight loss--and that's the sticking point for me. So I'm confused. My doctor has told me that he has no problem with me doing LC IF--to experiment with it if I want to. I just don't really know what to do.

Any advice you can offer would be appreciated.

[maxlharris]

Care to elaborate on the 'hole'?

The argument, as put forth by Dr. Mike:
IF didn't really do anything for us.

The hole:
Drs. Mike and Mary Dan did not eat a ketogenic, or even particularly controlled carb manner while doing IF.

It is impossible to say whether the combination of a PP style eating with IF would work better than a carb fest IF vs PP normal meals. This would be space for further experimentation.

I am in the camp that thinks it's about the caloric flux combined with the hormones being aligned (that's weightloss). I do not think that maximizing caloric deficit for 15-20 hours then maximizing caloric credit for the other 4-9 hours seems like the best way to maintain a steady loss. Now, that's me and my sources (Men's Health, Lou Schuler, Jeff Volek, etc). It might be that this is a completely crap point of view, and timing of calories and types of calories don't matter. Seems unlikely, but 20 years ago, eating ad lib fat and protein to lose weight also seemed like a crap idea, and yet...

[lczeledoc]

I think the key for IF to work, is that it has to be intermittent and random. Also, specially for people that are lifting weights, periods of overfeeding help to keep your metabolic furnace stoked. YEs, in the after fasting period you could eat a little more carbs, specially if you have exercised, there is no excuse to go face down on crap carbs.

[Gabriel Guzman]

Gabe,

I have a lot of weight to lose, enough that many doctors would try to convince me that gastric bypass is my only chance for long term success. Fortunately, my doctor believes in LC eating and feels that if I stick to it, I'll be successful (even though the weight loss is faster with bariatric surgery).

And you will! A few years ago, we had a member named Tracy. You can see here (http://www.pppics.com/TracyJ.htm)her before and after pictures. No gastric bypass, just continuous learning about PP and, of course, consistency in staying on plan. The last pictures I saw from Tracy, from her wedding (back in 2005), were just amazing. She's always been one of my 'heroes' here and a great inspiration. You already experienced the results of PP when you stay on it, as I read in the rest of your post, so you already know what to do at least from the practical side of things. The emotional side, on the other hand, is another story and we all need to find the reasons again and re-find ourselves in the winning mode.


My concern is that I don't want to do anything that will make my body adapt itself to fewer calories. I've been on so many weight loss programs that were at least temporarily successful that I know I've really messed up my metabolism. I lost 83 pounds on PP between 2002 and 2004 and just slowly let myself slide back up.

We've all been through ups and downs on our journey to better health. Sometimes the 'downs' last longer than we expect. The problem is that when we're down, we don't seem to find the motivation, support, courage, or reasons to get back on track and we stay down for a long time. The good news is that when we decide to get back on track, it works again. I know that some people like to believe that there is some sort of 'one-time' kind of golden rule... in my own experience, every time I go back on track after a go astray for a while, it works as it did the first time. What doesn't always work is the motivation and I know then that I have to work hard to find that motivation. Here is where a solid support group plays a key role, and in your case, a doctor that understands what this program is all about and helps you.


I'm grateful that I have re-lost those pounds and am almost on new ground. I haven't lost much the last few weeks and I'm not sure why. I've toyed with going back to IF for a bit to change things up, but the article by Dr. Mike seems to say to me that IF may not be effective for long term weight loss--and that's the sticking point for me. So I'm confused. My doctor has told me that he has no problem with me doing LC IF--to experiment with it if I want to. I just don't really know what to do.

In my opinion, a few weeks is not enough for my body to get back on track, especially if it's been a while since I was 100% committed. When I first started following PP (I can't believe it's been almost 9 years!), I decided that I would give it 3 months to see substantial change (not necessarily in body weight but my main problem, which was high cholesterol and high trigs).

It is when we have been 'away' for a while when we really need to go back to basics, just as if we're starting PP for the first time if we want to really get back on track. Back to basics means exactly that... food journaling (I know... we might think we don't need it, but it does help to keep us accountable), even strictly counting for a while until we 'get into the groove of things'. It's amazing how fast we forget to include this or that in our daily allotment of carbs.

Back to IF... in the past, I wrote in several posts, including some comments on Mike's blog, that I didn't see much practicability on IF when I was already on a PP-like nutritional approach. If anything, the logistics were just a nightmare and the results wouldn't be better than what I was already getting with PP. So, why would I like to do something to get the same results as with PP? Some people found it doable and it worked for them but right from the start, I didn't see anything too convincing, at least not in humans.

[Gabriel Guzman]

The argument, as put forth by Dr. Mike:
IF didn't really do anything for us.

The hole:
Drs. Mike and Mary Dan did not eat a ketogenic, or even particularly controlled carb manner while doing IF.

If I remember correctly, they tried different schedules and one of their trials was indeed a carb-controlled (PP-like, really), so I think they did try that as well.

I am in the camp that thinks it's about the caloric flux combined with the hormones being aligned (that's weightloss). I do not think that maximizing caloric deficit for 15-20 hours then maximizing caloric credit for the other 4-9 hours seems like the best way to maintain a steady loss. Now, that's me and my sources (Men's Health, Lou Schuler, Jeff Volek, etc). It might be that this is a completely crap point of view, and timing of calories and types of calories don't matter. Seems unlikely, but 20 years ago, eating ad lib fat and protein to lose weight also seemed like a crap idea, and yet...

I find myself completely 'freed' from the 'calorie way of thinking'... I put more stock on the source of calories than the amount. Taking the dynamic action of food into account helped me really understand how useless is to think of calories as calories per se without considering how the body reacts to different calorie sources. Richard Feinnman wrote once on this board that when 'the calorie issue' is explained to an engineer or a physical chemist, they understand it so well, and see why the calorie is a calorie concept makes no sense... but to dietitians, nutritionists and physicians (not all of them but the ones that get hung up with how they think thermodynamics works in the human being) somehow those thermodynamic issues just escape them.

Anyway, thanks for the elaboration.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Thanks for the encouragement. I remember Tracy--she was one of my heroes, too, when I was faced with losing 80 more pounds than I have to lose now. That's a great reminder of the long term success of the program.

I think for now that I'll just stick to the basics. I have been journaling at times, but not every day. I think that the timing of my meals is an issue. I know I eat too late (I work two jobs, so finding time to eat is a challenge every day). I just finished reading GCBC, and the explanation of why our bodies utilize the evening/night hours to burn fuel helps me see the importance of finishing the eating period earlier than I do.

[maxlharris]

If I remember correctly, they tried different schedules and one of their trials was indeed a carb-controlled (PP-like, really), so I think they did try that as well.
I seem to recall that too. But in the posts on Tim Ferriss's blog, mirrored on Dr. Mike's, Dr. Mike didn't seem to discuss that. I see it as a hole for further, better experimentation. Not that I want to do it, but if you were holding out hope for IF being a good solution, that might be the route. Personally, I don't, but I'm not a scientist, outside of the field of economics as applied to government operations (a frustrating field to experiment in).

I find myself completely 'freed' from the 'calorie way of thinking'... I put more stock on the source of calories than the amount. Taking the dynamic action of food into account helped me really understand how useless is to think of calories as calories per se without considering how the body reacts to different calorie sources. Richard Feinnman wrote once on this board that when 'the calorie issue' is explained to an engineer or a physical chemist, they understand it so well, and see why the calorie is a calorie concept makes no sense... but to dietitians, nutritionists and physicians (not all of them but the ones that get hung up with how they think thermodynamics works in the human being) somehow those thermodynamic issues just escape them.

Anyway, thanks for the elaboration.

I understand that all calories are not created equal. And I understand that you can maintain on a completely ad lib, zero carb diet, regardless of calories. And I also understand how, you can not lose on a greatly reduced set of calories when carbs are in the mix. I get all that (the same way I get that contestants on Let's Make a Deal should always switch their curtain after one is revealed... that's a complex bit of logic, but trust me).

BUT, given a goal of losing weight, at some point, the calories clearly count. Dr. Atkins wrote that it was so and Dr. Mike has written in his blog that this is true at certain points (like trying to move from a low body fat number to a lower one). I also understand that LC eating (when you are properly tuned to your hunger) is self limiting on the calories. But, you take a diet of 60-70% dietary fat. You're burning fat for fuel, primarily. Your goal is to use the stored fat. We're not to believe that someone with a BMR of 2000 and 1500 in activity calories is going to burn stored adipose tissue on 5000 kcal, without storing extra, are we? I don't know, I'm asking. From what I've read, calories aren't always calories, metabolic advantage does exist, but at some point, on the margin, they do count. Especially as you get closer to the bottom ranges of healthy body fat %age, or beyond. I guess I'm not super clear on all this. I buy into everything in Good Calories, Bad Calories, but I still find the metabolic flux argument to be very convincing, especially given my experience.

[Gabriel Guzman]

BUT, given a goal of losing weight, at some point, the calories clearly count. Dr. Atkins wrote that it was so and Dr. Mike has written in his blog that this is true at certain points (like trying to move from a low body fat number to a lower one).

What I contest is that it is not calories per se but how the body will make use of the source that brings in the calories. Trying to aim at a certain number of calories has no meaning if the actual diet is not considered. For example, for someone with a diet that is 65% carbohydrates, the metabolism is set in a certain way that makes using fat in store difficult. The calculation of the minimum amount of calories takes that 65% contribution from carbohydrates. Now think of someone that has been on a low-carbohydrate diet for a while, with a body now well adjusted to burn fat instead of carbohydrate, the calculation of minimum caloric intake using the same method simply doesn't apply. Why? because carbohydrate is not the main component in the diet. When fat is the main component, the actual formula changes (the formula considers metabolic rate, which also reflects the actual composition of the diet). Under those circumstances, the number of calories could be overestimated quite a bit... say 25% more. End result, aiming for a certain caloric intake, calculated 'as usual' while on a low-carbohydrate diet may lead to eating more than what's needed. Having said that, if carbs are still kept low then there is either protein or fat to increase in order to reach that caloric number. If the nutrient chosen is protein, then the body will not really use the fat coming in for energy but the fat in store because is energetically costly to process protein. If the nutrient chosen to increase is fat, then that is what is going to be used instead. Still, the underlying thought is to aim to some 'magical' (okay.. not magical but biased) caloric intake.

I also understand that LC eating (when you are properly tuned to your hunger) is self limiting on the calories. But, you take a diet of 60-70% dietary fat. You're burning fat for fuel, primarily. Your goal is to use the stored fat. We're not to believe that someone with a BMR of 2000 and 1500 in activity calories is going to burn stored adipose tissue on 5000 kcal, without storing extra, are we? I don't know, I'm asking.

I think it depends on how those 5000 cals are composed. My point is why the need to establish a predetermined percentage. Why the need for a 60-70% calories from fat, for example? I think the PP way to estimate how much to eat based on lean body mass and level of physical activity is exquisite in the sense that there is no way that one can over or under eat because it is tailored to individual situations. When I was on the intervention phase, really strict on the 30 gr ECC (before PP LifePlan), I was also very strict on the amount of protein by not going under my minimum and quite frankly didn't think about fat intake. The fat in my diet came with whatever protein source I chose. In fact, I normally ate at least ~50% more protein than my minimum. When I estimated the actual caloric intake I had under those circumstances, I barely reached 1800 calories per day. Not because I consciously wanted to eat that 'low' (by current standards) caloric intake but because that's where the number ended up when I made the calculations. All of this without starving or compromising lean body weight (and at that time I wasn't exercising either). The amount of protein I was eating was also significantly higher than what I was eating before PP. Now, had I followed the standard calorie rule, my minimum caloric intake would have been 2400 (because the calculation didn't consider that my diet was very different), so that minimum number was 600 cal higher than what I really needed. And remember that because I set my nutritional composition based on my lean body weight and level of physical activity, that was precisely what I needed, obviously a lot less than what the standard calorie rule would estimate. The only way for me to actually eat 2400 calories would have been to force myself to increase protein intake, if I wanted to keep tapping into the fat I had stored. Not that I didn't like it, I did try at times but satiety kicked in and I could never really force myself to eat beyond ~60-70% over my minimum protein intake on a daily basis.

From what I've read, calories aren't always calories, metabolic advantage does exist, but at some point, on the margin, they do count.

Absolutely! And that can be measured. Richard Feinmann (sp... I always mispell his last name!:) ) put forth where metabolic advantage is likely to have a key role. So, of course calories count but not as much as we are lead to believe. It's not just a matter of calories in and calories out. Otherwise it would be impossible to explain why eating the same amount of calories as in a 'standard' diet one can lose weight (from fat) when the nutrient composition changes towards more protein.

Especially as you get closer to the bottom ranges of healthy body fat %age, or beyond. I guess I'm not super clear on all this. I buy into everything in Good Calories, Bad Calories, but I still find the metabolic flux argument to be very convincing, especially given my experience.

In my opinion, when one is trying to reach those lower levels of body fat %, eating alone may not work as fast as eating and exercising the right way to encourage more fat utilization. Sometimes people refer to this as inducing a caloric deficit, which makes sense as long as we don't talk within the context of calories in/calories out, but calories from XY (nutrient composition) that induce the use of calories stored.

It's been a long day today and I just hope I'm making some sense! :)