Intermittent Fasting... anyone try it?

[jonovision_man]

I was reading about this Intermittent Fasting idea, supposedly studies have backed it up as actually having positive effects (ie. an increase in insulin sensitivity, longer lifespan).

http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/6/2128.full

Tried the 24 hour trial fast, it wasn't horrible.

Just wondering if anyone else has toyed with it, and what experiences people have had? Mostly how to dovetail it with run training, since we need energy to do our thing!

jono

[Darth Tater]

To me, intermittent fasting is the few hours between meals and snacks.

[HCcD]

To me, intermittent fasting is the few hours between meals and snacks.

Mine is between bedtime and breakfast ...

Though, I do believe that Janix does this fasting on a regular basis .....

[jonovision_man]

My experience so far:

I tried this "trial fast" where you don't eat for 24 hours. You can have coffee, tea, water, anything as long as it doesn't have calories. It went well. I wasn't as hungry as I'd have expected, until the last few hours. And in the days after that I felt a lot more in control of my eating... I'm someone who is always hungry, even after a big dinner, and after this I wasn't. So I'm inclined to keep going with this.

Next up I'm trying the other approach, which is the 16 hour fast done daily. Basically you do all your day's eating in an 8 hour window. I'm going to give that a go this week - so basically I'll eat between 11am-7pm only. This sounds pretty easy, skip breakfast (ooooh!) and don't snack after dinner.

jono

[La]

I often fast for about 12 hours, since I eat dinner around 6-7PM and rarely snack in the evening. Breakfast is at 6:30AM. I had to do a 12-hour fast for some blood work this week and it was fine (I think I actually fasted for 13+ hours). But I need to eat as soon as I wake up in the morning, so if I was going to do that 16-hour fast, I'd be more inclined to do it between 2:30PM and 6:30AM.

That said, I'm not convinced that it really has much benefit. Personally, I think what you eat (quality of calories) and how much you eat (quantity of calories) is much more important than when you eat.

[Spirit Unleashed]

I occasionally do 24 hours, but mainly to teach myself that I won't die if I miss a couple of meals.

[Annelizabeth]

While doing shift work I often, without thought on the matter fast 16-18hours. No ill effects- or really hunger.
Extreme lazyiness attached to no sleep makes me apathatic towards food.

[jonovision_man]

While doing shift work I often, without thought on the matter fast 16-18hours. No ill effects- or really hunger.
Extreme lazyiness attached to no sleep makes me apathatic towards food.

Wow I wish I had that... my wife does the same thing, she forgets to eat! I never forget - my stomach reminds me, even when I shouldn't be eating.

jono

[jamix]

I was/am a really big time practitioner of every other day fasting....

My opinion:

1) If your interest in weight loss, this diet is easier, but less effective than a standard calorie restricted diet

ex. I lost 6 lbs over 3 months in 2010 on an every other day eating diet. I started by fasting for 18hrs every other day and worked my way up to 24 hours by the end of the 3 months. However as soon as I came off the diet, I put on ALL the weight I lost in the span of TWO WEEKS

2) If you do this regularly, say even once a week, you could have better control of your eating as Spirit mentions. In my opinion 16 hours is a tad short though. Maybe you don't have but to go the full 24, but perhaps 18-19 hrs......

3) Yes this eating regime does seem to have some kind of health and/or wellness effects. I describe it as a "feel good" diet, because there are times in the year (especially when I'm not inclined to exercise), where this diet really makes me feel more upbeat for some reason.....

[jonovision_man]

Awesome feedback, thanks!

How did your training go? Did you run on those fasting days? Or was this during an off-season or something?

jono

[jamix]

Awesome feedback, thanks!

How did your training go? Did you run on those fasting days? Or was this during an off-season or something?

jono

I could and did run on my fasting days. During the 3-month fast, my training was unaffected accept at the beginning (when I was starting the diet) and during the last month when the length of the fasts were such that I was loosing weight too quickly. That regime went from mid-September to mid December during 2010, and in early November I ran a 5km race faster than I ever had previously throughout my 20's.....I probably lost 2.5 lbs by that time. By December I lost 5-6lbs, but was experiencing some weakness by then.....

Training will obviously be effected during a fast (longer the fast, the bigger the detriment), however you can adapt. Towards the end of the above regime, I could fast for 21-22 hours and experience no reduction in performance.

[Stephan]

I am one who opposes any sort of fasting (unless it is short term and needed for accurate medical measurements/tests) It is not a natural behavior and plays havoc on the immune system, also those who might have kidney/liver problems already would be at risk along with those who might have undiagnosed symptoms. I understand weight loss is a result of short term fasting but "easy come easy go" or in this case "easy go easy come back?" It would distract people from the big picture which would be having a balanced healthy diet and having calories in vs calories out in check. It is my opinion only but I am sure most of the medical community would somewhat agree with it. If someone really wants to fast, they should just cut out alcohol, caffeine, refined sugar, trans fats etc.. Running on empty is a great song but not a good lifestyle.

[jonovision_man]

I am one who opposes any sort of fasting (unless it is short term and needed for accurate medical measurements/tests) It is not a natural behavior

It actually is entirely natural... most of the animal kingdom - including humans until the last several hundred years - eats sporadically. The age we live in now where food is available anytime, anywhere, is what is truly unnatural.

This is the premise behind a lot of these new(ish) ideas on diet, that we evolved to deal with an entirely different pattern of eating than we have available to us today.

jono

[Annelizabeth]

age we live in now where food is available anytime, anywhere, is what is truly unnatural.

This is the premise behind a lot of these new(ish) ideas on diet, that we evolved to deal with an entirely different pattern of eating than we have available to us today.

It all falls into hunting/gathering pedigree. As well, people prior to a global food eccomeny made due on a greatly reduced caloric intake during winter months.

[Stephan]

I am one who opposes any sort of fasting (unless it is short term and needed for accurate medical measurements/tests) It is not a natural behavior

It actually is entirely natural... most of the animal kingdom - including humans until the last several hundred years - eats sporadically. The age we live in now where food is available anytime, anywhere, is what is truly unnatural.

This is the premise behind a lot of these new(ish) ideas on diet, that we evolved to deal with an entirely different pattern of eating than we have available to us today.

jono

I appreciate that but until a few hundred years ago, the avg lifespan of humans was a lot lower than it is today. We have evolved from the animal kingdom and no longer have to hunt and or gather food, we do not have to endure a diet based on a limited availability. I do understand that eating in excess is never a good plan, but just because we have a abundance of food available to us does not mean that we all eat wrongly. There is a food guide available and I strongly believe that to be the most optimum plan. Eating sporadically is a broad term and can mean many things, I think smaller portions (of healthy food) on a regular interval throughout the day (grazing) is better than going without food altogether for extended periods. I agree with caloric reduction, not caloric restriction. We are not living in caves anymore and we have medical science available, all these so called fads (caveman diet etc..) are just that, fads.


Eating excessively is wrong but there is also a counter-balance to this theory. I sure would not want to tell my kids that we are only eating every second day from now on because in the "old" days that is what animals and people did so it must be what we are meant to do. A few hundred years ago, a lot of people were starving to death (literally)

[Jwolf]

I am one who opposes any sort of fasting (unless it is short term and needed for accurate medical measurements/tests) It is not a natural behavior

It actually is entirely natural... most of the animal kingdom - including humans until the last several hundred years - eats sporadically. The age we live in now where food is available anytime, anywhere, is what is truly unnatural.

This is the premise behind a lot of these new(ish) ideas on diet, that we evolved to deal with an entirely different pattern of eating than we have available to us today.

jono

I appreciate that but until a few hundred years ago, the avg lifespan of humans was a lot lower than it is today. We have evolved from the animal kingdom and no longer have to hunt and or gather food, we do not have to endure a diet based on a limited availability. I do understand that eating in excess is never a good plan, but just because we have a abundance of food available to us does not mean that we all eat wrongly. There is a food guide available and I strongly believe that to be the most optimum plan. Eating sporadically is a broad term and can mean many things, I think smaller portions (of healthy food) on a regular interval throughout the day (grazing) is better than going without food altogether for extended periods. I agree with caloric reduction, not caloric restriction. We are not living in caves anymore and we have medical science available, all these so called fads (caveman diet etc..) are just that, fads.


Eating excessively is wrong but there is also a counter-balance to this theory. I sure would not want to tell my kids that we are only eating every second day from now on because in the "old" days that is what animals and people did so it must be what we are meant to do. A few hundred years ago, a lot of people were starving to death (literally)

well said Stephan!

We always talk about how "balance" and moderation is key; to me fasting just goes to the extreme.

[jonovision_man]

I appreciate that but until a few hundred years ago, the avg lifespan of humans was a lot lower than it is today. We have evolved from the animal kingdom and no longer have to hunt and or gather food, we do not have to endure a diet based on a limited availability. I do understand that eating in excess is never a good plan, but just because we have a abundance of food available to us does not mean that we all eat wrongly. There is a food guide available and I strongly believe that to be the most optimum plan. Eating sporadically is a broad term and can mean many things, I think smaller portions (of healthy food) on a regular interval throughout the day (grazing) is better than going without food altogether for extended periods. I agree with caloric reduction, not caloric restriction. We are not living in caves anymore and we have medical science available, all these so called fads (caveman diet etc..) are just that, fads.

Eating excessively is wrong but there is also a counter-balance to this theory. I sure would not want to tell my kids that we are only eating every second day from now on because in the "old" days that is what animals and people did so it must be what we are meant to do. A few hundred years ago, a lot of people were starving to death (literally)

My point really is just that any claims to know what the "right" way to eat is are getting way ahead of the science on the issue. And going hungry is something we're adapted to do in our evolutionary past.

jono

[Spirit Unleashed]

skipping a few meals every now and then is ok. It has its benefits.

[Stephan]

I appreciate that but until a few hundred years ago, the avg lifespan of humans was a lot lower than it is today. We have evolved from the animal kingdom and no longer have to hunt and or gather food, we do not have to endure a diet based on a limited availability. I do understand that eating in excess is never a good plan, but just because we have a abundance of food available to us does not mean that we all eat wrongly. There is a food guide available and I strongly believe that to be the most optimum plan. Eating sporadically is a broad term and can mean many things, I think smaller portions (of healthy food) on a regular interval throughout the day (grazing) is better than going without food altogether for extended periods. I agree with caloric reduction, not caloric restriction. We are not living in caves anymore and we have medical science available, all these so called fads (caveman diet etc..) are just that, fads.

Eating excessively is wrong but there is also a counter-balance to this theory. I sure would not want to tell my kids that we are only eating every second day from now on because in the "old" days that is what animals and people did so it must be what we are meant to do. A few hundred years ago, a lot of people were starving to death (literally)

My point really is just that any claims to know what the "right" way to eat is are getting way ahead of the science on the issue. And going hungry is something we're adapted to do in our evolutionary past.

jono

I do agree with that, diet is something very general and can be individualized or tailored to the masses. I guess I am advocating the "masses" side of things. (the timing might be off) but Lance Armstrong's diet while racing/training is probably very different than what most people eat but it works for him, also Dean Karnazes for example eats two very distinct diets which are complete polar opposites to one another when he is training and when he is racing. I think most people take a bit here, a bit there and balance things out to suit themselves. There is no real right or wrong . Just stubborn opinions the whole topic really fascinates me and I used to be an extremist type of person but in my older years I am settling back to a “generic” balanced thinking pattern. (or trying to  at least)

[Jogger Barbie]

... We have evolved from the animal kingdom and no longer have to hunt and or gather food, we do not have to endure a diet based on a limited availability. ...

Pet peeve here: we have not "evolved from the animal kingdom" - we remain part of the animal kingdom. From an evolutionary biology standpoint, we're really not that far removed from the original hunter/gatherers, and I doubt that our food processing systems have changed that much.

But I offer no opinion on anything else in this thread.

[jonovision_man]

I do agree with that, diet is something very general and can be individualized or tailored to the masses. I guess I am advocating the "masses" side of things. (the timing might be off) but Lance Armstrong's diet while racing/training is probably very different than what most people eat but it works for him, also Dean Karnazes for example eats two very distinct diets which are complete polar opposites to one another when he is training and when he is racing. I think most people take a bit here, a bit there and balance things out to suit themselves. There is no real right or wrong . Just stubborn opinions the whole topic really fascinates me and I used to be an extremist type of person but in my older years I am settling back to a “generic” balanced thinking pattern. (or trying to  at least)

The only weight loss scheme I've done before this is calorie counting (in/out) - skipped all the other fads. So I'm not that "extremist"! I'm a man of science first and foremost.

The reason I'm trying this one is there are scientific studies showing it improves insulin sensitivity (something I've had issues with in the past) and non-human studies (including monkies) showing it contributes to longevity. All anecdotal evidence I've encountered so far has been positive, and when I did the 24-hour trial fast I personally felt better and less hungry after.

jono

[Stephan]

Now I am hungry ....I guess I will eat my lunch early. Keep us informed Jono on how this is working for you, I am always interested in these things.

[jonovision_man]

You're hungry? I haven't eaten in 15 hours!

jono

[HCcD]

You're hungry? I haven't eaten in 15 hours!

jono

Me too, well, at least since 7:30am ...

[Ironboy]

The only weight loss scheme I've done before this is calorie counting (in/out) - skipped all the other fads. So I'm not that "extremist"! I'm a man of science first and foremost.

The reason I'm trying this one is there are scientific studies showing it improves insulin sensitivity (something I've had issues with in the past) and non-human studies (including monkies) showing it contributes to longevity. All anecdotal evidence I've encountered so far has been positive, and when I did the 24-hour trial fast I personally felt better and less hungry after.

jono

Try eating paleo. I swear I go hungry sometimes because it is ridiculously hard to find food downtown that doesn't have a ton of sugar or processed grain in it. And I refuse to pay 2 bucks for a banana!