Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by restless, May 1, 2003.
Alternated fasting and overfeeding might have the same benefits as calorie restriction
I knew it! This is my new way of dieting!
Are you going to fast for a whole day?
Very interesting. How would one use this type of scenerio in a HST cycle? High calories AM vs. low PM or vice versa or something else.
Not quite, but I'm trying a similar approach. Something like eating 75% of the daily calories in the 6-7 hours after a workout. So far I like it.
Or maybe something like 1000 cals above mantenance for the 24 hours after your workout and 1000 below for the next 24 hours untill your next session. I might try this. Anyway, report back to us about your results in what concerns muscle preservation or even gains.
Lyle McDonald has hinted numerous times on the Keto forum that he has some strategy employing this principle, and that he would reveal it soon...so far he hasn't spilled his beans, though...
ummmm, tell us if you hear something more specific about it, ok?
I don't think there are many secrets to this approach, it's just concurrent bulking and cutting. Since massive feeding for upwards of 4-5 hours can upregulate leptin, the 'dieting period' of the day will be as effective as possible. Plus, you avoid BMR suppression. Plus, you better control all the factors involved in appetite regulation.
One problem I can think of is this avoidance of BMR supression. I mean, if you're doing it for the health beneffits then isn't this supression supposed to play a important role in the life extension properties of caloric restriction? I've seen researchers say in a documentary on discovery chanel that most likely the two most important factors are lower body temperature and lower insulin levels and isn't lower body temperature a "side effect" of a lowered BMR?
Sure. But with low BMR and low calories you won't build much muscle. Bodybuilding is only borderline compatible with optimal longevity practices. Longest living people around the world were undereaters, engaged in only moderate exercise and were certainly undermuscled (at least by our standards). This "i'm -doing -the -best -for -my -body" myth has fueled bodybuilders for a long time, but it's only a myth. If one's priority is life extension, he would be better off practicing yoga
I can't remember where ...
but I read that low calories are not the main reason for a long life span but the lower bodyfat percentage is (ofcourse, this two are connected but not neccessarily ...).
Yeah, I am aware of that. I guess what we're trying to do is minimizing the damage as much as possible.
I actually still haven't understand what they mean with "insulin signaling", which his supposed to be some kind of event triggered by insulin in fat cells that is involved in this acelerated ageing process. Do you know what exactly are they refering to?
And yes, BF is probably a big issue too.
I don't know. I think everyone's speculating right now. They have observed that lower insulin levels mean longer life for some mammals, so they assume insulin accelerates certain metabolic procedures and low insulin levels force the body to enter 'hibernation mode'.
Free radicals seem to be an important player too, so we should take our antioxidants (which on the other hand may hinder growth signal). Everything is a compromise, I guess...
Some people have gone to unbelievable extents of supplementation in order to pursue eternal youth. This guy says he's looking 10 years younger than he is, but probably he has spent these 10 years in swallowing pills
Now, as for bodyfat's role in longevity, the following remarks from ExRx seem to further complicate the whole issue:
"There is no clear-cut evidence substantiating obesity causes poor health and reduced longevity (Gaesser, 1996; Ernsberger & Haskew, 1987).
Weight loss for overweight individuals may fail to improve health and can actually increase mortality rates (Andres, Muller & Sorkin, 1993).
No relationship exists between body fat and degree of artheroscleritic buildup in coronary arteries (Barett-Connner, 1995; Kramer, et al., 1993).
Greater body fat has a protective effect against osteoporosis (Felson, et al., 1993), lung cancer (Kabat & Wynder, 1992), and breast cancer (Wallace, et al., 1982).
The best mortality rates are those 25 to 30 percent over ideal recommended weight (Gaesser, 1996).
Fitness level is far more important than body weight as a predictor of longevity. Individuals as great as 50 pounds over the recommended weight in height/weight charts have lower mortality rates than thin people who were sedentary (Blair & Paffenbarger, 1994; Blair, et al., 1989).
Thin underactive men have 2.5 times the death rate than active overweight men."
There is increasing evidence that obesity is a risk factor for heart disease (independant of others), but if you look at the risks associated with it for diabetes, its clearly not good for you.
Depends, theres been no decent long term trials with weight loss and longevity, the best thing is to not get fat in the first place. But in terms of the reference above, do they take into account why the person lost weight. If a large percentage of people lose weight because of disease, it will distort the picture.
Uhuh, obesity increases many things associated with heart disease (and involved in the atherosclerotic plaque), inflammatory mediators, cholesterol levels, BP, left ventrical hypertrophy, yada yada yada. They have to think of adipose as more than just an inert tissue, its an endocrine organ.
Osteoporosis protection is mainly thru increased bodymass. But most obese people do not have sufficient bone mass to support their weight (especally in fat kids), so they break more bones. Cancer protection is a interesting one. The older studies on fat and lung cancer were thwarted becuase smokers are generally lighter, so it distorts the picture. Most of the breast cancer ones that seem to have shown no effect of obesity is case-control. So the measures are taken post-cancer, and cancer pateints have usually lost weight (obviously not in all examples, but in a fair few). Postmenopausal women are at a 2x greater risk of breast cancer if they are obese.
increased risk of most diseases usually starts at just below the normal weight range, and increases steadily above that. Also depends on the disease you are looking at. Diabetes rates increase after about hte 'cut off' and once you get into the obese range, relative risks are HUGE.
there was a paper out on this subject this year. A fat, fit person is about the same 'risk' as a unfit thin person. But they are all in the wake of the fit/thin person.
old data. Depends on why the men where thin and why they were inactive.
and then theres all the social and emotional effects of being fat....
So is this calorie taping then if you ingest the majority of your calories in a small period? i.e. Warrior Diet.
I actually checked this thread a couple of days ago and found the article posted by restless to be ideal for a small report I have due at the end of this week. I come back to print out the article which is a required part of the assignment and now the link isn't working I tried accessing the home page to maybe locate it myself and that won't even work. Maybe (probably) I am just an idiot but could anyone help me out on this one? And also just to add something to the thread besides a desparate cry for help, I believe I can remember Lyle McDonald saying somewhere that 24 hours fasting and 24 hours of feasting really messes up one's endocrine system. But it concept itself still has potential if the time frames are played with some ala warrior diet style like Cliner9er said maybe.
oh never mind on the whole link not working thing i figured it out
Separate names with a comma.