Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
Intermittent fasting 2017-09-12 05:38:23 Post No. 42831993
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Intermittent fasting 2017-09-12 05:38:23 Post No. 42831993
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: goal body.jpg (175KB, 590x421px) Image search:
[Google]
175KB, 590x421px
hey /fit/ here's a question for you that i haven't seen anyone ask or mention. what's the deal with intermittent fasting?
remember back in the day when, if someone wanted to lose fat, they were told to eat more frequently, with smallish portions. the thinking behind this was that the constant feeding of small portions increased the speed of your metabolism, because your body was constantly in a state of gaining and breaking down foods, and thereby you were preventing your body from ever entering "starvation mode" (where consumed food was converted to fat for storage immediately as a sort of saftey mechanism to ensure you'd never starve, which occured if you ate rarely and infrequently)
now only recently i have heard of "intermittent fasting", which is the complete opposite method, but somehow achieves fat loss too? the thinking behind it is that your body is in a "fed state" for 5-8hrs after a meal, and isn't actually able to burn any (or at least not much) fat at all as within that period it is simply using the energy from the food just consumed. you then don't eat from say 7pm to 12pm the next day, giving a gap of 17hrs of no food, where the body enters some other state (forget it's name, lets just call it burn state or some shit) where your body is actually able to use the energy from the fat as it no longer has ANY energy from the foods accesible.
now in principal from an uneducated perspective, these both seem to make sense, but they also contradict one another. how is this possible fit? do you know if one is definitely true and the other is bullshit, perhaps both are true (which i don't understand how two contradictory statements could be true)
someone please help me understand the mechanics behind both and which i should try (intermittent definitely seems more convenient)
tl;dr intermittent fasting vs "cave man" style diet. both seem to make sense but also contradict one another wtf??
pic semi related: goal body in terms of fat percentage
>>
>>42831993
when you eat your lazy body has no reason to take energy from fat stores because you're digesting, that's where fasting comes in, both are valid but with multiple portions people fuck up by eating big portions and with fasting people have weak will to get through suffering before their metabolism adapts to the routine
>>
File: 1503937224566.png (49KB, 409x409px) Image search:
[Google]
49KB, 409x409px
>TRIPLE SIX
>FIVE
>FORKED
>TONGUE
>>
>>42831993
>they were told to eat more frequently, with smallish portions.
That was a meme by the carbjew, the junkfood companies, a conspiracy to sell SNACKPACKS. they know snacking on carbs will make people hangry every two hours. Solution? Suggest they'll lose weight, kek, if they eat "smol meels" all the live long fucking day, grazing like cows on muh healthy cookies, rotting their teeth, and then BOOM!
Obeast epidemic of epic proportions.
>we don't know why
>it's a mystery
>science can't explain
>juhnetics
>muh cundishuns
Sure thing, sugarcup.
>>
>>42831993
IF worked for me. I lost a lot of fat, not much muscle mass.
It also fucked up my metabolism to the point that I could not shit without laxatives for literally months (and even those didn't always work).
I'm still recovering from the metabolism destruction thing.
>>
>>42831993
In simple terms IF is a very useful "Hunger Management" tool.
It allows you to eat a decent size meal later in the day, gives you something to look forward to and a mental reward.
The reality is that frequently eating is only useful for tall guys with naturally high metabolism.
Everyone else has to work at getting and staying lean.
So less frequent eating allows for:
1. Hunger Management
2. Easier Compliance to calorie deficit
>>
Look up Michael Mosley's documentary "Eat, Fast and Live Long"
The basics, from what I understand, is that when you eat (and a couple hours after), your body goes into a "reproduction" mode where it replaces cells, burns the calories that you've consumed and generally accelerates growth.
When you fast it goes into this "repair" mode, where it focuses on repairing damaged cells, slow down growth and burn fats as it has no calories to burn.
In short, fasting apperantly extends your life as your body repairs your cells rather than replacing them, which reduces risk of cancer. It also helps you lose weight as your burning fat rather than recent calories.
>>
>>42831993
It works for me. If you've got willpower but no real "routine" it works out well. I only eat 7-11pm on week days, healthy but any time on saturday/sunday
As many people say, it's mostly a mental tool rather than some body hack. I look at a sandwich or my mates buying food and instead of getting something for minute hunger or just for the sake of it I shrug it off because I just don't eat 80% of the time
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2