The fasting diet is for morons!!!
- 08-04-2011, 10:23 PM
- 08-04-2011, 10:32 PM
No, the objective is to establish a 16 hour fasting time, and 8 hour eating time. I work out at 7am, and don't have a meal till noon.
08-04-2011, 10:37 PM
So within an 8 hr time frame your cramming in around 2-3000 calories? Yea, ok, good luck with that. Sure your getting leaner, catabolic wise too!!!
And yes, I carry my meals with me to work and some other places I go, its called discipline.
08-04-2011, 10:46 PM
First of all dude....how about researching something before creating a thread about something you know NOTHING about. Period. All you are doing is making yourself look like a moron for popping off. You remind me of guys who have the attitude of "ready, shoot, aim"
Trust me, you do not have to eat 6-8 meals a day to pack on mass. The whole point of the intermittent fasting isnt to "bulk" up, but rather to lean gain over a long period of time.
08-04-2011, 10:50 PM
08-04-2011, 10:55 PM
I know, we're strange. See a lot of us use science to guide our iron endeavors. It's the type of thing that is backed up by research. I know science isn't for everyone and some people just like to say a bunch of crap like "that's catabolic!" That's cool, my old gym was filled with tons of people like you. Just try not to get mad at those of us who do use science as our guide.
08-04-2011, 11:00 PM
Lean Gains...any questions?
08-04-2011, 11:07 PM
Man, forget all the science, my increased strength, decreased weight, and smaller waist, and the fact that my life is much more enjoyable since starting IF, the OP repeated old poorly founded bodybuilding dogma but with a new twist.
He used CAPSLOCK -- undeniable proof that his statments are forged in logical rigor and are undeniably true.
I am convinced, back to 7 tiny meals per day. Where is my tupperware?
08-04-2011, 11:28 PM
What else do you reccomend? Standing in the corner? Perhaps a time out to spark anabolism?
Why do I need to be disciplined? Is there some logic in that?
As I said, IF isn't for everyone. If you don't want to do it that's fine, it might not be right for you. But to suggest that making your life inconveinient through "disciplinary" actions like carrying a knight rider lunchbox around with you everywhere you go is silly.
08-04-2011, 11:32 PM
08-04-2011, 11:33 PM
Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power, and the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes. You are free.
08-04-2011, 11:34 PM
08-04-2011, 11:36 PM
08-04-2011, 11:38 PM
08-04-2011, 11:48 PM
08-04-2011, 11:53 PM
And like I said, a LOT of science is behind it. Does that mean you can't have success without doing IF? Of course not. It's a tool that happens to work well for some people. And if it's such a recipe for disaster why are so many big people doing it? Why are so many people talking about how much success they've had? Why is science saying a lot of principles behind it work?
Has it ever occurred to you through reading all of this that YOU might see better results doing this? Or are you just always going to blindly follow what you read somewhere in Flex a long time ago?
08-05-2011, 12:00 AM
I almost feel sorry for you bro. If you don't like it don't do it. In no way do I think or claim to be Arnold. My intention was to show you that people are capable of using the Lean Gains protocol to attain successful results. (or be over 200lbs is how you phrased it I believe) I suppose I supplied you with a visual aid as my profession of being an Art Teacher has taught me that certain individuals are better stimulated with imagery. Good luck with whatever goal you are trying to achieve through this thread.
08-05-2011, 12:23 AM
08-05-2011, 12:31 AM
quick question....if u say ur insulin sensitivity is messed up if you get hungry every 3 hours or so, how do you correct it? cuz thats how I am and thats why I am reluctant to try lean gains because i hate starving lol, i love hte idea of the huge PWO meals and what not but not starving, I need to be ale to focus at school this upcomin semester
08-05-2011, 01:08 AM
I don't get what the argument is.
weight is slightly decreasing, while looking alot leaner.
i dont see where catabolism fits into the equation. if all this muscle is falling off, and catabolism is certain, how come the scale isn't registering it? for those remedial dieters, ill explain more clearly. Muscle has weight. Fat has weight. If muscle is being lost , weight must change. But, what if some how the amount of muscle being lost is equal to the amount of fat gained? How am i looking leaner, while gaining fat and losing muscle, and all the while the scale is only moving slightly?
If your theory is true that I am leaner but also losing muscle, it would follow that i would see significant changes in weight. Since your subtracting both the weight of the fat, and muscle.
IF I am losing muscle, I am certain it is less than would be on a standard calorie deficit diet- purely looking at the numbers.
For me, the action IS the juice.
08-05-2011, 01:13 AM
No one wants to come to the knowledge that perhaps they've been doing ''the wrong thing'' for so many years.
The difference is, the IF crowd has tried both styles of dieting and prefers IF. most of the 6 meal a day dieters have never tried IF, yet, prefer 6 meals.
For me, the action IS the juice.
08-05-2011, 01:52 AM
08-05-2011, 10:56 AM
"Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study."
Your problem is you keep talking about how garbage of a diet it is with nothing to back it up. Seriously, not a thing other than your word that it sucks. And then you act shocked that no one is taking you seriously.
08-05-2011, 11:08 AM
it intermittent fasting can i sip on BCAA's in the 16 hour time period?
Serious Nutrition Solutions | Online Representative
Growth Factor XT-GROW! Need Cycle Support? Check out Liver XT.
Follow SNS on Facebook for more promos!
08-05-2011, 11:13 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By donbx in forum LG SciencesReplies: 13Last Post: 02-19-2010, 09:08 PM
- By lifted in forum General ChatReplies: 78Last Post: 04-02-2008, 08:40 AM
- By EasyEJL in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 27Last Post: 03-26-2008, 04:31 PM
- By DmitryWI in forum General ChatReplies: 24Last Post: 05-18-2007, 07:17 PM
- By Whiskey Steve in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 16Last Post: 02-27-2006, 06:59 PM