The Warrior Diet, anyone have opinions/experience with it?

[Waxman]

hugoshi:

You are still in an adjustment period for the diet. It took me a week to fully mesh with the diet and have the strength, endurance, and energy I had before the diet. I tell you though, on that 6th or 7th day when I had all the energy back and did my chest workout it was worth every second of the previous few days. :-)

[dorkthethird]

hey guys:
a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

you can eat 3500 calories of lard and 3500 calories of whey protein you will gain the same amount of weight. the difference is what kind of weight it is. due to the contraints of physics and chemistry, based on the chemicals (food) eaten, you body has a limited number of pathways with which to respond.

the aspect of the warrior diet that i disagree with is that while 5 calories at 6am are still 5 calories if they're eatten at 6pm but the problem, once again, are the pathways available. the human body cycles its hormones, (circadian rhythems) which effects what the body is willing and able to do with the raw materials created from digestion at various times of the day. some processes can only be completed while awake for example.

one key factor to look at with these "scientific" studies is whether or not blood and urine analysis were completed. most nutritional studies are poor in design. if they don't bother to take into consideration what is going on in detail within the body and instead just focus on the outward result (fat or muscle losses/gains) then they aren't bothering to look at the whole picture, or taking means to account for any errors.

it is no secret that the body handles carbs best in the morning and uses protein to build muscle more efficiently in the evening. the blood and urine composition at various times of day tells us this.

i think the functioning factor of the warrior diet is that you are allowed less time to eat and therefore, are less likely to overeat as opposed to someone who freely grazes all day.

anyone who does a large amount of cardio, such as distance runners, can tell you that you need glycolic stores in your liver to perform for a sustained period of time. that means if you do a decent amount of cardio, you need to eat carbs before and after your workout. this is even more true if you train in double sessions like i do (cardio in the am, strength/skills at night)

and i agree completely that most nutritionists are not learned enough to train an athlete. i left 4 in the first year that i started racing distances longer thatn a marathon. i can barely find a personal trainer qualified to guide me through an ultramarathon.

i'm sorry i'm not quoting studies, if you folks need i can drag out my undergrad text books, but i do biochem research for a living.

[Waxman]

I understand that a lot of interest/speculation is being stirred up about the Warrior Diet but it seems like those commenting have too little information.

Not eating during the day and then eating whatever you want at night is <b>NOT</b> the warrior diet.

The Warrior Diet is structured allowing you to eat minimally during the day, only of fresh raw vegetables and fruits or their freshly prepared juices.

Post weight-training, regardless of time of day you ingest between 10-20g of Protein and 5-10g complex carbs immediately afterwords.

The over-eating phase is very structured. You begin with raw, fresh veggies(a good salad). Have a soup if you like, then destroy a protein dense main course and, if still hungry, have some good carbs afterwords.

It is not an eat anything you like diet. It is not a don't eat at all diet. It is a cyclical diet designed to have your body cleansing and detoxing during the day and then repairing/building/maintaining at night.

There is no calorie restrictions, no minimum or maximum. Anyone on the diet for more than a week will quickly discover they begin to crave what their body needs. hell, the other day I had the strongest craving for a raw tomato and I HATE tomatoes. Sure enough, my body knew what it wanted and for the first time I actually liked the damn fruigtable.

[alan aragon]

Quack city. But oh well, gimmicks sell books.

I almost started to dive in here & clear up the physiological misconceptions/inaccuracies/misapplications point by point, but they keep racking up in this thread to the point that it would be quite a project! Cleansing & detoxing? I love it! Sounds like circadian colonics. I might decide to take this book apart, in-depth. That would be a hoot of a good time. No promises yet, of course, other more difficult obligations precede.

As a matter of recommendation, if you're following a goofy diet for health purposes, you will actually get more nutritional benefit (specifically, carotenoid bioavailability) out of tomatoes by cooking them. But, this is only one of the many misapplications of this joke of a diet. Did I say that fad diets are a good joke tailored to the placebo-hungry, & outright confused? No offense. I just call it as it is.

And the reason the author would single out post-workout to have the trivial amount of 10-20g protein + 5-10g carbs is perhaps an inside joke.

If/when I decide to get my hands on this book, I could probably take a red marker to 80% of each of its pages. *buzzer sound*. Wrong. Incorrect. Nope, wrong. If I find any redeeming (or accurate & physiologically correct) aspect about the diet, I will certainly concede to them. But based on what I'm reading in this thread, I see no need to even bother.

Amazing.. Calorie reduction by any other name or voodoo method is STILL calorie reduction.

[kliplemet]

While I mostly agree with you, I think this is not true, quiet the opposite if you ask me:

Originally Posted by dorkthethird

i think the functioning factor of the warrior diet is that you are allowed less time to eat and therefore, are less likely to overeat as opposed to someone who freely grazes all day.

Just think about all those laypeople who decide to go on a 'diet', they starve themselves and then start eating like there is no tomorrow.

[Mixelflick]

The real value in this diet is as follows:

1.) A potentiator for a brief overfeeding phase and;

2.) Accelerated fat loss

That is, following Warrior principles for a few days rotated with 3-5 days of overfeeding.

Lower calorie/fasting phases activate cAMP, which breaks down fat stores and up-regulates enzymes that help to store carbohydrate/water/amino acids in muscle tissue.

Higher calorie/frequent feeding phases activate cGMP and in particular, Insulin secretion which builds/volumizes muscle.

Cycled intelligently, the Warrior Diet is a very useful tool and I believe, superior to straight low calorie/low carb dieting. I also believe it has anti-aging properties as I have spoken to many people who've had blood work done showing lowered blood sugars, higher Growth Hormone levels and better cholesterol profiles.

Like anything else, it has its place.

[melon]

All the scientific backing is well enough, but at the end of the day, I just enjoy eating too much to eat only 1 meal a day. I look forward to my next meal in 3 hours time, and all the tasty things I'm going to cook up.

Each to their own I guess.

[Dosquito]

Is it called the warrior diet because warriors would have to fight all day and then eat as much as they could in the night?

[kliplemet]

Originally Posted by Dosquito

Is it called the warrior diet because warriors would have to fight all day and then eat as much as they could in the night?

I think it is simply called that way to make it sound special.
What is a 'warrior' anyway?

[Waxman]

Much like Alan I am sick of arguing. I have tried 6 meals a day w/ different macro-nutrient ratios. That diet worked well. I lost fat, I gained some muscle.

All I am establishing here is that the "Warrior Diet" works BETTER for me. I have lost more fat, gained some attentiveness and focus, and have not lost any muscle or strength.

You can argue why it shouldn't work, and all of the generally accepted principles, which you'll notice I don't argue, all day.

I am merely stating, in response to the thread, my experiences and opinions with the warrior diet.

That being said, if you are interested in the diet, read the book. Noone says you have to follow it if you read it.

Lastly, I wouldn't necessarily call it a fad diet considering it has been around, in various forms, since the earliest records of man. Greeks and Romans had one main meal, in the evening, and ate little during the day. It is, like all things, cyclical. Re-emerging. People wear retro-shoes, vintage clothes, and I remember a few years ago when Swing Music got big again. Perhaps this is just a vintage diet.

Either way, it comes down to what works for you.

[watcher16]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

most of my clients who used to be overweight or obese were on the warrior diet without knowing it - before they changed their horrendous habits & got into shape. i know this for a fact, via taking their diet histories as a matter of standard assessment protocol. but, this same phenomenon of bad habits goes for most of the nation's busy working class; they skip breakfast, eat very little during the day, & work up to a huge gut-bomb of a dinner. now just take a look at the average physique. the evidence is OBVIOUSLY HEAVY.

basically, the warrior diet is the biggest crock of bull**** piece of **** fad diet scheme i've come across since the blood type diet. the author is a former political satire artist for penthouse magazine. he also happens to have good genetics for leanness (whoopee), & a great penchant for marketing bull**** & misinterpreting the very basics of human physiology. pretty credible guy, huh?

The only research I know off on intermittent fasting indicates that it is very good for you to eat in a 4-hour period during the day.

Another piece of research showed that it does not matter if you eat during the day or late at night.

[watcher16]

Originally Posted by kliplemet

I think it is simply called that way to make it sound special.
What is a 'warrior' anyway?

I heard that during the making of the movie 'Alexander' actors were fed like the Warrior Diet to see if it was compatible with the simulated way of life of the 'warrior'.

[nickortego]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

Quack city. But oh well, gimmicks sell books.

I almost started to dive in here & clear up the physiological misconceptions/inaccuracies/misapplications point by point, but they keep racking up in this thread to the point that it would be quite a project! Cleansing & detoxing? I love it! Sounds like circadian colonics. I might decide to take this book apart, in-depth. That would be a hoot of a good time. No promises yet, of course, other more difficult obligations precede.

As a matter of recommendation, if you're following a goofy diet for health purposes, you will actually get more nutritional benefit (specifically, carotenoid bioavailability) out of tomatoes by cooking them. But, this is only one of the many misapplications of this joke of a diet. Did I say that fad diets are a good joke tailored to the placebo-hungry, & outright confused? No offense. I just call it as it is.

And the reason the author would single out post-workout to have the trivial amount of 10-20g protein + 5-10g carbs is perhaps an inside joke.

If/when I decide to get my hands on this book, I could probably take a red marker to 80% of each of its pages. *buzzer sound*. Wrong. Incorrect. Nope, wrong. If I find any redeeming (or accurate & physiologically correct) aspect about the diet, I will certainly concede to them. But based on what I'm reading in this thread, I see no need to even bother.

Amazing.. Calorie reduction by any other name or voodoo method is STILL calorie reduction.

http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objecti...t-fasting.html

[StefanDozier]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

Quack city. But oh well, gimmicks sell books.

I almost started to dive in here & clear up the physiological misconceptions/inaccuracies/misapplications point by point, but they keep racking up in this thread to the point that it would be quite a project! Cleansing & detoxing? I love it! Sounds like circadian colonics. I might decide to take this book apart, in-depth. That would be a hoot of a good time. No promises yet, of course, other more difficult obligations precede.

As a matter of recommendation, if you're following a goofy diet for health purposes, you will actually get more nutritional benefit (specifically, carotenoid bioavailability) out of tomatoes by cooking them. But, this is only one of the many misapplications of this joke of a diet. Did I say that fad diets are a good joke tailored to the placebo-hungry, & outright confused? No offense. I just call it as it is.

And the reason the author would single out post-workout to have the trivial amount of 10-20g protein + 5-10g carbs is perhaps an inside joke.

If/when I decide to get my hands on this book, I could probably take a red marker to 80% of each of its pages. *buzzer sound*. Wrong. Incorrect. Nope, wrong. If I find any redeeming (or accurate & physiologically correct) aspect about the diet, I will certainly concede to them. But based on what I'm reading in this thread, I see no need to even bother.

Amazing.. Calorie reduction by any other name or voodoo method is STILL calorie reduction.

How about this, you yourself actually try the diet before you comment on it, you could read millions of pages of so called 'correct' documentation of mostly bull **** government studies, it wont make a ****ing difference, try the method before you make moronic comments, regardless of what you think you know or read.

[mojo18]

I've started eating at noon and I still have 5 small meals every two hours. I know for me If eat after the first few hours after I get up I feel sluggishB but if I eat like even two big meals I just feel bloated the next day. I'll stick with eating every couple hours.

[Mr.Hombre]

Originally Posted by StefanDozier

How about this, you yourself actually try the diet before you comment on it, you could read millions of pages of so called 'correct' documentation of mostly bull **** government studies, it wont make a ****ing difference, try the method before you make moronic comments, regardless of what you think you know or read.

Going back in time two years to e-yell at someone. Lol

edit: three years. haha

[imccarthy]

Originally Posted by Mr.Hombre

Going back in time two years to e-yell at someone. Lol

x2...

[BlueFenix13S]

Originally Posted by StefanDozier

How about this, you yourself actually try the diet before you comment on it, you could read millions of pages of so called 'correct' documentation of mostly bull **** government studies, it wont make a ****ing difference, try the method before you make moronic comments, regardless of what you think you know or read.

Originally Posted by Mr.Hombre

Going back in time two years to e-yell at someone. Lol

edit: three years. haha

Originally Posted by imccarthy

x2...

x3, specially considering who he e-yelled at lol

[joelmondo]

All this diet is, is a glorified version of the traditional daily detox diet that Olympic athletes have been practicing for ages. The author just gave it a name and wrote a book about it. Daily detox is biologically proven to work, so yes, this diet will work for those that want to slim down and be decently lean (with the addition of exercise of course). But seasonal bodybuilders will not benefit from this diet in any way.

[josephstache]

I adopted 'The Warrior Diet' five months ago after discovering a classmate of mine whose a beast with more energy than anyone I've ever met has been on the diet for a while.

Had my doubts to the validity of the claims my classmate and later after reading Mr. Hofmekler's book made; however, being an open-minded individual I figured why the hell out and gave it a try. After a rough adjustment period of about a month, I've come to the realization that this is the way I'm going to eat for the remainder of my life.

I don't follow the diet to the letter as there's a few things I personally don't agree with (me being a vegetarian and all) and I'm not going to make scientific claims or push this way of eating onto anyone as the only thing I'm interested in is the results I have had from it and those results have come in spades: rapid body fat loss, increased muscularity and boosted energy levels.

I realize that last line sounds like I'm plugging the book and its ideas and in sense I am... at least to the degree that if people are willing to try new things then they should and maybe they'd find a preferable way to live their lives (speaking from experience) by giving this a shot even if it sounds like a stretch.

Sure, there's a countless number of ways to eat and exercise to get results, so I'm not saying this is an end-all definitive to nutrition, but it's become a way of eating I personally love and loving what you do is the key to it all.

[Own3r]

I have decided to try Intermittent Fasting which is similar in a way to the worrior diet for the next 3 months to see its effects on my physique and muscle mass. I was actually happy that I have gained a few pounds after my contest, this will help me ti verify the use of the diet for fat loss. Basically the approach that I addopted is breaking the fast at 4pm working out at 5 and having the eating window till 9pm so a 19hour fast. What is interesting is that I've been having a lot more energy through the day and my concentration at the gym is crazy. So far I am loving this approach. No more retardation with eating every 3 hours and I can finally have the feeling of being fool back!
I hope that in 3 months from now, I will not notice any muscle loss, this way I can stay on this diet and use it during my bulk and pre cntest next year.

[imccarthy]

[img]http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/not_this_****.jpg[/img]

[caa5000]

of course an eating method like this is going to pit broscience against IF (warrior diet). And while both sides have good arguements, some of the conclusions that are getting drawn up here seem to be coming from people who've never tried one or the other, or they've based their careers off of broscience/6x a day method (aragon, for example).

I think the one thing we're forgetting is how amazingly adaptable the body is. One thing that strikes me about all these studies is that when they feed a target person with all their daily calories in 1 hour, do they normally eat like this? The body gets into a circadian rhythym, it begins to expect food when you normally eat it. Much like the people who eat 6x/day are probably hungry 6x/day, IFers/warrior diet followers tend to get insanely hungry, once per day. I'm not going to try and get into a scientific arguement, especially with someone who has an advanced degree (or just one in general) in the subject.

However, I will say that I think both diets are perfectly acceptable. When people say that "general america" is a bunch of IFers, I think that's a little rediculous. Warrior diet followers eat fruit, general americans eat chocolate, cinnabuns and flavored coffees. In addition, most mainstream Americans don't get fat overnight, it's compounded over years and years of eating the aforementioned foods. I remember reading somewhere that the average American eats only 7 more calories then he/she needs! By abstaining from eating any foods, save fruits in some IFers minds, you forego the thought of eating some of these unhealthier things. It's also important to stress that many IFers adapt this lifestyle in order to not worry about preparing meals and feeling sluggish throughout the day, in whcih eating 6x/day may or may not have made particular people.

Eating 6x/day may be the better option, who knows, but I stand firm that the adaptability of the human body will compensate for whatever you "throw at it." However, one thing I want to mention is that while many 6x/day dieters look at the warrior diet as a fad, it is not quite visa versa. While 6x/day eaters place science at the forefront of their eating habits, IFers place their belief in being completely full once per day and a general increase in clarity. So to claim ANYTHING is a fad diet is viable, as there are always conflicting viewpoints.

I'm not going to sit here and say one is better than the other. And while I don't quite buy the "body retransformation" part of IFing (keep in mind, this is my protocol), I stress that most IFers use this diet because it fits their lifestyle. Most IFers became frustrated with the mundane schedule of eating 8x/day and decided it'd be easier to just eat once. With that said, you can't expect many people who are so ingrained in eating 6-8x/day to buy into eating once, while all IFers were originally in the camp of eating multiple times per day at some point in their life. Thus, most of the bias you see is directed towards "big mealers."

Last thing I wanted to go over was the misconception that marketing is convincing us to eat 6x/day. No, it's the general weakness of the human being. We buy into bull**** often, we tend to listen to others without reason, and we follow the general mass. So therefore, you might have preferred eating 2-3x/day, but now you eat 6-8x/day. Conflicting viewpoints are ripping us in so many directions it's rediculous. And often we listen to people without forming our OWN conclusions (hence the whole reason for this misunderstanding of a protocol such as IF).

The truth is plenty of people buy into (not saying this is a bad thing AT ALL, in fact I still eat like this on occasion) eating every 2-3 hours, general marketers recognized this and ran away with it.

[imccarthy]

Originally Posted by caa5000

of course an eating method like this is going to pit broscience against IF (warrior diet). And while both sides have good arguements, some of the conclusions that are getting drawn up here seem to be coming from people who've never tried one or the other, or they've based their careers off of broscience/6x a day method (aragon, for example).

I think the one thing we're forgetting is how amazingly adaptable the body is. One thing that strikes me about all these studies is that when they feed a target person with all their daily calories in 1 hour, do they normally eat like this? The body gets into a circadian rhythym, it begins to expect food when you normally eat it. Much like the people who eat 6x/day are probably hungry 6x/day, IFers/warrior diet followers tend to get insanely hungry, once per day. I'm not going to try and get into a scientific arguement, especially with someone who has an advanced degree (or just one in general) in the subject.

However, I will say that I think both diets are perfectly acceptable. When people say that "general america" is a bunch of IFers, I think that's a little rediculous. Warrior diet followers eat fruit, general americans eat chocolate, cinnabuns and flavored coffees. In addition, most mainstream Americans don't get fat overnight, it's compounded over years and years of eating the aforementioned foods. I remember reading somewhere that the average American eats only 7 more calories then he/she needs! By abstaining from eating any foods, save fruits in some IFers minds, you forego the thought of eating some of these unhealthier things. It's also important to stress that many IFers adapt this lifestyle in order to not worry about preparing meals and feeling sluggish throughout the day, in whcih eating 6x/day may or may not have made particular people.

Eating 6x/day may be the better option, who knows, but I stand firm that the adaptability of the human body will compensate for whatever you "throw at it." However, one thing I want to mention is that while many 6x/day dieters look at the warrior diet as a fad, it is not quite visa versa. While 6x/day eaters place science at the forefront of their eating habits, IFers place their belief in being completely full once per day and a general increase in clarity. So to claim ANYTHING is a fad diet is viable, as there are always conflicting viewpoints.

I'm not going to sit here and say one is better than the other. And while I don't quite buy the "body retransformation" part of IFing (keep in mind, this is my protocol), I stress that most IFers use this diet because it fits their lifestyle. Most IFers became frustrated with the mundane schedule of eating 8x/day and decided it'd be easier to just eat once. With that said, you can't expect many people who are so ingrained in eating 6-8x/day to buy into eating once, while all IFers were originally in the camp of eating multiple times per day at some point in their life. Thus, most of the bias you see is directed towards "big mealers."

Last thing I wanted to go over was the misconception that marketing is convincing us to eat 6x/day. No, it's the general weakness of the human being. We buy into bull**** often, we tend to listen to others without reason, and we follow the general mass. So therefore, you might have preferred eating 2-3x/day, but now you eat 6-8x/day. Conflicting viewpoints are ripping us in so many directions it's rediculous. And often we listen to people without forming our OWN conclusions (hence the whole reason for this misunderstanding of a protocol such as IF).

The truth is plenty of people buy into (not saying this is a bad thing AT ALL, in fact I still eat like this on occasion) eating every 2-3 hours, general marketers recognized this and ran away with it.

Yeah but here's the deal (from a scientific view at least)

Is IF optimal for muscle gain? No.
Fat loss? No.
Blood glucose management? No.
Heart/blood vessel health? No.
Training intensity? No.

So... there's no point IMO.

And before you ask, I have tried IF.

[caa5000]

Originally Posted by imccarthy

Is IF optimal for muscle gain? No.

While I can't argue that one, as this is where I think IF's major fault lies, there are plenty of instances of people bulking while on IF on this board.

Originally Posted by imccarthy

Fat loss? No.

Now I don't understand this comment, especially considering the plethora of scientific studies showing that it IS calories in v calories out. Am I going to sit here and say IF is better for weight loss then eating 8x/day? No. But I will say that I think there is little difference between the protocols.

Originally Posted by imccarthy

Blood glucose management? No.

While I don't have the time to go look for studies I will say that a lot of people look to IF as a way to control diabetes and prediabetes.

Originally Posted by imccarthy

Heart/blood vessel health? No.

Since doing IF, I've noticed a markable decrease in blood pressure and heart rate, even though they were never "poor" before. my blood pressure has dropped from 140/70 (as it runs in my family) to more recently 120/70. My heart rate has decreased even further from my already low levels from approx the high-40's to the low-40's.

However, this could just be a sign that I'm dying :-p

Originally Posted by imccarthy

Training intensity? No.

Now this part I will GLADLY dispute. In particular, my running times have gone down, and I have had greater muscle endurance as my training regimine calls for it. I haven't "lifted for max" in ages, so I can't really dispute you there. I attest this to my way-too-big pre-WO meals I used to have.



And while you may be very right that eating frequently is better, I'm simply stating that the effects are fairly negligable.

[imccarthy]

Originally Posted by caa5000

While I can't argue that one, as this is where I think IF's major fault lies, there are plenty of instances of people bulking while on IF on this board.


Now I don't understand this comment, especially considering the plethora of scientific studies showing that it IS calories in v calories out. Am I going to sit here and say IF is better for weight loss then eating 8x/day? No. But I will say that I think there is little difference between the protocols.



While I don't have the time to go look for studies I will say that a lot of people look to IF as a way to control diabetes and prediabetes.



Since doing IF, I've noticed a markable decrease in blood pressure and heart rate, even though they were never "poor" before. my blood pressure has dropped from 140/70 (as it runs in my family) to more recently 120/70. My heart rate has decreased even further from my already low levels from approx the high-40's to the low-40's.

However, this could just be a sign that I'm dying :-p




Now this part I will GLADLY dispute. In particular, my running times have gone down, and I have had greater muscle endurance as my training regimine calls for it. I haven't "lifted for max" in ages, so I can't really dispute you there. I attest this to my way-too-big pre-WO meals I used to have.



And while you may be very right that eating frequently is better, I'm simply stating that the effects are fairly negligable.

Fat loss:
Let's say an IF guy fast 20 hours and then eats 2000 calories and 200 grams of protein in one meal lasting 4 hours as per the Warrior Diet protocol.
The biggest problem is the amount of time spent in a primarily catabolic state and the lack of protein throughout the day. While the whole "maximum protein absorption at one meal" thing is overblown is it ridiculous to suggest that eating all of one's protein needs at one meal is optimal for muscle retention.

Blood glucose:
This one is just common sense. Fast all day, blood sugar falls to nothing setting yourself up for serious hypoglycemia. You then eat hundreds of grams of carbs in one meal causing a massive rise in blood glucose. Definitely NOT optimal for blood sugar management.

Heart health:
I was referring to the risk involved in eating a single meal containing all of one's daily fat. For most people that will be 50-100 grams of fat. Eating that much fat in such a short period equates to drastically increased risk of heart attack for several hours after the meal. The vast majority of heart attacks come after a meal containing 50 grams of fat. Now image 70 or 80+ grams of fat. Not pretty.

Training intensity:
For the vast vast majority of trainees, doing high intensity lifting or cardio in a fasted state is the best way to pass out from hypoglycemia. Not good.

You sound like an exception to a lot of rules...

[skelooth]

my 4 year old topic is still going strong. schweet. lol.

[Paumen]

Alan sticking up for bodybuilding tactics is like finding gold at the end of the rainbow.









Edit: I'm not brown nosing

[sni2pal]

IF might be desirable for people who have a hard time controlling their food intake on a cut.

I recently finished a cut and one thing I learned about meal frequency on a cut is that higher meal frequency made the cravings worse. Key in managing the cravings for me was focus. Nibbling on frequent small meals made me focus on food more and thinking about food every few hours made the cravings unbearable.

By reducing the meal frequency and shifting a person's focus away from food, I think IF can make the fat loss experience mentally less fatiguing.

Although, I still wouldn't go with it in its pure form. I would much rather try to minimize meal frequency, while still maintaining good workout food bracketing.

[caa5000]

Originally Posted by sni2pal

IF might be desirable for people who have a hard time controlling their food intake on a cut.

I recently finished a cut and one thing I learned about meal frequency on a cut is that higher meal frequency made the cravings worse. Key in managing the cravings for me was focus. Nibbling on frequent small meals made me focus on food more and thinking about food every few hours made the cravings unbearable.

By reducing the meal frequency and shifting a person's focus away from food, I think IF can make the fat loss experience mentally less fatiguing.

Although, I still wouldn't go with it in its pure form. I would much rather try to minimize meal frequency, while still maintaining good workout food bracketing.

I completely agree. It's natural to want to have a full belly, and when you're eating a few hundred calories at a time it's really tough. On a cut I bump the meals down to two: pre and post workout and it seems to work fairly well. To each his own