Six Meals Vs Fasting - AnabolicMinds.com
    • Six Meals Vs Fasting


      by Jose Antonio, Ph.D. Iron Man Magazine

      You’ve heard the mantra: Eat frequently—five to seven small meals daily, each including a serving of protein, healthy fat and low-glycemic-index, or fibrous, carbohydrates, such as vegetables. Now I’ve heard that maybe it’s a good idea not to eat those frequent meals and instead engage in “intermittent fasting.” In a simple sense, most folks think of this as basically not eating on occasion. And herein is the problem. IF is different things to different people.

      If people told me they were doing intermittent fasting, it would mean that one or two days a week they simply didn’t eat. That’s fasting. Fasting is not skipping dinner. It’s not skipping meal number four of your six meals. Fasting is fasting. It’s not not eating a meal. So until the International Group of Fasting Scientists come up with an agreeable definition, it’ll be like judging a bikini contest; it’s all in the eye of the beholder. That said, let’s at least look at some telling statistics on what happens when humans alter their basic patterns of eating.

      A recent study from the International Journal of Obesity looked at the feasibility and effectiveness of intermittent continuous energy with continuous energy restriction for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic-disease-risk markers.1 In other words, the subjects either cut their calories evenly over a six-month period or restricted calories for only two days per week over the six-month period. Both diets involved a 25 percent calorie restriction overall. The continuous restriction group cut their calories by 25 percent spread evenly over the week, whereas the intermittent group followed a very low-calorie diet two days per week, cutting calories by 75 percent.

      Results: both methods were equally effective for weight loss. Both groups had similar reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex-hormone-binding globulin, IGF-binding proteins 1 and 2; however, the intermittent group had a lower fasting insulin. So the bottom line is that both seemed to produce similar weight loss, with the intermittent method being better for insulin sensitivity. But that was in fat people. What happens to folks who actually exercise?

      In a more relevant study, scientists determined whether Ramadan intermittent fasting affects 5,000-meter running performance and other parameters classically associated with middle-distance performance.2 Ramadan is a month of obligatory daily fasting that starts at dawn and ends at sunset, so that to me is “intermittent fasting.” Two experimental groups participated in two experimental sessions, one before Ramadan intermittent fasting and the other at the last week of fasting. The subjects were 18 well-trained, middle-distance runners. At the end of Ramadan fasting, a decrease in maximal voluntary contraction—i.e. strength—was observed as well as a decrease in performance of -5 percent. There was no effect on running efficiency or maximal aerobic power. The study shows that Ramadan intermittent fasting can result in a detriment to performance.

      So should you fast or not? Or shall you stick religiously to six meals a day for the rest of your life?

      Editor’s note: Jose Antonio, Ph.D., is the CEO of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (www.theissn.org); also check out his site www.TheWeekendWorkout.com.

      1 Harvie, M.N., et al. (2011). The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women. Int J Obes (Lond). 35(5):714-27.

      2 Brisswalter, J., et al. (2011). Effects of Ramadan intermittent fasting on middle-distance running performance in well-trained runners. Clin J Sport Med. 21(5):422-7.

      Source: http://www.ironmanmagazine.com/is-si...eally-the-way/
      Comments 12 Comments
      1. Bodock's Avatar
        Bodock -
        worthless
      1. ballerj63's Avatar
        ballerj63 -
        They were also dehydrated because during Ramadan you cannot drink fluids during the fast. They need to include variables in this crappy article.
      1. TurningGreen's Avatar
        TurningGreen -
        Wtf. I had no idea there was such controversy over the word FASTING...the world may never know its meaning lol. Fasting and IF are not the same...period. I also enjoyed the vernacular in the described study where the participants were labeled as "FAT"
      1. OrganicShadow's Avatar
        OrganicShadow -
        Flawed and inconclusive article.
      1. Spemack's Avatar
        Spemack -
        6 to 8 hr window daily eating is the best for me.
      1. Blacklines86's Avatar
        Blacklines86 -
        Jose Antonio should consider requesting a refund from the institution that granted his Ph.D. It seems his primary objective to fasting is that is means different things to different people. He then proceeds to inform his audience as to his own subjective, personal opinion of the definition. Heavy on opinion, light on relevant scientific data. What do the semantics of the term "fasting" have to do with analyzing IF as a useful dieting strategy? Wait for it....... NOTHING!! We all know what IF means in the context of recent fitness trends. However, let me help you, Dr, Antonio, since you seem to be challenged in the your understanding of the English language:

        The word "Intermittent" is appended to "Fasting" to differentiate it from "Fasting."

        It seems logical the supplement industry is sensing a threat to its business. When people being to realize that 6+ small meals are NOT important in maintaining an optimal metabolism, what will they STOP reaching for? That's right, all those MRP's, protein shakes, and bars that are used to fill in the nutritional gaps while adhering to the 6+ meal recommendation. This has more to do with market share than research, as Jose demonstrated in his nonsensical opinion piece. The title of the article could have been:

        Fasting, A Biased Paid Industry Spokespersons Perspective

        Look at the bottom of the ISSN website under sponsors. That will tell you all you need to know.
      1. Blacklines86's Avatar
        Blacklines86 -
        Jose Antonio should consider requesting a refund from the institution that granted his Ph.D. It seems his primary objective to fasting is that is means different things to different people. He then proceeds to inform his audience as to his own subjective, personal opinion of the definition. Heavy on opinion, light on relevant scientific data. What do the semantics of the term "fasting" have to do with analyzing IF as a useful dieting strategy? Wait for it....... NOTHING!! We all know what IF means in the context of recent fitness trends. However, let me help you, Dr, Antonio, since you seem to be challenged in the your understanding of the English language:

        The word "Intermittent" is appended to "Fasting" to differentiate it from "Fasting."

        It seems logical the supplement industry is sensing a threat to its business. When people being to realize that 6+ small meals are NOT important in maintaining an optimal metabolism, what will they STOP reaching for? That's right, all those MRP's, protein shakes, and bars that are used to fill in the nutritional gaps while adhering to the 6+ meal recommendation. This has more to do with market share than research, as Jose demonstrated in his nonsensical opinion piece. The title of the article could have been:

        Fasting, A Biased Paid Industry Spokespersons Perspective
      1. anaboliko's Avatar
        anaboliko -
        so...?
      1. alwaysgaining's Avatar
        alwaysgaining -
        Lol Duh if u don't eat then train you will be weaker. X2 worthless
      1. heybeavis1's Avatar
        heybeavis1 -
        Originally Posted by alwaysgaining View Post
        Lol Duh if u don't eat then train you will be weaker. X2 worthless
        not really. you should put into equation the supercompesatory effect of the meal following your fasting state. when you fast for hours, TRAIN FASTED then eat, you partition nutrientes better, you have more insulin sensitivity (so more glucose running to your muscle cells than to your adipocytes), more catecolamine output in the fasted state besides other things
      1. AaronJP1's Avatar
        AaronJP1 -
        I perfer to fast when I sleep, 12 hours a day should be good enough. :P

        Eat the other 12.
      1. OrganicShadow's Avatar
        OrganicShadow -
        Originally Posted by AaronJP1 View Post
        I perfer to fast when I sleep, 12 hours a day should be good enough. :P

        Eat the other 12.
        Hence the term "break-fast". Which, for most people, is somewhere between 8-12 hours. All people, unless you wake to eat midsleep, fast at some point in the course of 24 hours. I agree with blacklines in the thought of 6+ meals a day mantra greatly helps MHP sell protein pudding. I also disagree to say that any fasting protocol research or article is due to industry royalties. Its rare, in any field of study, to find research thats truly funded independently. My hospital received a pretty penny from a certain diagnostics company for our cross-platform research on hematology anaylzers but I believe in the cause and my data - does that mean its not true?