Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 56 of 56
  1. #31
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 28,984
    Rep Power: 145763
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    That's fair. I understand that you and others here get bombarded by people looking for shortcuts to fat loss or muscle gain. I have no problem standing by and observing while you guys respond with the usual "read this sticky". But when follow-up questions ask for technical detail why should either of us be the right or wrong person? Don't discredit information that answers the question just because you don't like the messenger.
    1. I'm not even sure he was actually asking for the real technical details. He may have been or he may not have been. I think he was more looking for broad lines: does it help with fat loss and does it impair glycogen stores. He may have wanted some more detail I doubt he was looking for speculative theories.

    Here's an important point though: when you tell someone with default knowledge that fasting increases fat oxidation they're very likely to think: 'yeah! fasting will make me lean and ripped!'. So that's why it's important to make the disclaimers I made. If you make those disclaimers in the future I won't have to comment like I did.

    2. Accurately explaining the technical details of what happens during fasting requires certain knowledge that I don't think you or I posses sufficiently.

    3. It's not that I don't like the messenger (you), it's that I have serious doubts about the accuracy of some of your assertions in this thread and your interpretations of the literature.

    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    The whole "show me the study" approach to dialogue in this forum is bizarre to me.
    Well the general tendency of the nutrition section of this forum is science based. Some of your assertions in this thread are a better fit for the misc section. Yes people post some serious speculation there too.

    Here you'll often be asked to back up your assertions with appropriate studies.

    Food for thought: Several years ago it was believed that supplementing fish oil would reduce CVD risk in healthy people. This was supported by the available studies at that time. Then it was often recommended for that purpose on this forum. Then later the science changed: larger systematic reviews failed to find a significant benefit in healthy people. So now recommending fish oil to reduce CVD risk is no longer supported by science. This happens a lot, science evolves.

    Here's the caveat though: supplementing fish oil could still have a benefit to reduce CVD risk in healthy people, but the studies so far may have not been setup appropriately to find the effect. So who knows we may have to change the advice later again.

    BTW, one more point about the people who believe they can't go without food for 5 hours. I believe they easily can, they're just underestimating their own capability to do so. I've fasted for 48 hours before without any training. Once I got over the mental hurdle it was easy.

    Originally Posted by totallypants View Post
    The discussion that is happening in this thread is interesting tbh. Would be nice to see some evidence for what rtpmarine is saying if there is any. Seems like the point he's making is he's not training for results as much as training his body to be able to handle metabolic fluctuations more stably. Like a kind of survivalist training.
    In that context I can see the benefit. But we're on a bodybuilding forum. And it just so happens that we also have a lot of people reading this forum who don't have healthy eating habits in place, or worse, (have tendencies to) develop an eating disorder. In that regard it's not a great idea to recommend relatively extreme dietary practices in order to gain some poorly supported benefits.

    This is a good thing to keep in mind about fasting in general: when you're really looking for the potential health benefits 16 hours fasting is unlikely to make meaningful differences. But when fasting for longer periods muscle retention in well trained individuals won't be optimal.
    Last edited by Mrpb; 11-07-2019 at 05:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #32
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 17,768
    Rep Power: 85695
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post

    When I say that something improves metabolism, I'm saying that it expands or enhances those chemical processes and therefore makes the body capable of maintaining life under progressively more varying circumstances. In essence I'm saying: Improved metabolism = increased adaptability.

    The nuance here is that if you follow the same schedule day in and day out (eating, exercising, and sleeping the same way at the same times), then your body is going to get very good at the specific metabolic processes required for those circumstances and begins to attenuate and mitigate the metabolic processes that are not.
    Says who?

    Statements like this are prime example of the whole “here’s my idea, prove me wrong” attitude.

    You can’t just say something that sounds logical to you and expect people to believe it.

    What if I said that constantly varying your sleep schedule did the same thing in terms of ‘circadian flexibility’? Would you just blindly believe me?

    Example: I hereby posit that drastic weekly variations in sleep duration and waking hours enhance circadian flexibility and therefore improve sleep function. Periods of sleep deprivation (48-72 hours) without sleep, followed by several days of 12+ hours of rest per day, etc, are thus encouraged.

    Prove me wrong.
    Last edited by AdamWW; 11-07-2019 at 07:27 AM.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  3. #33
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 17,768
    Rep Power: 85695
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post

    BTW, one more point about the people who believe they can't go without food for 5 hours. I believe they easily can, they're just underestimating their own capability to do so. I've fasted for 48 hours before without any training. Once I got over the mental hurdle it was easy
    For myself, it isn’t to say I couldn’t go 5+ hours in the morning workout eating, I certainly could.

    There have been periods of time where life circumstances caused my eating window to inadvertently shift to not consuming food until about noon, which is 5 hours after I wake up.

    However, it always eventually goes back to eating within 2-3 hours of waking up, partially because I like training either in the AM with only a light blended smoothie in me, or 2 hours after my first meal. I never train well in a 100% fasted state, so really the idea of not eating for 5+ hours is contrary to my goals.

    I have also had periods wherein I tried to train myself to not eat until 12-1pm, but I never got passed about noon before food thoughts and hunger became too distracting and my quality of life just sucked... poor focus, distraction, etc.

    To be honest, I would love to be able to fit all my food into 2 meals in a day and ‘feel good’ doing so (pre workout, then post workout), but my body seems to fight that strongly.

    This could be exacerbated by the fact that I’m still too lean and light, but even while in a healthier range, I still have always just been a hungrier person... even when I was younger and held more bodyfat.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  4. #34
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    1. I'm not even sure he was actually asking for the real technical details. He may have been or he may not have been. I think he was more looking for broad lines: does it help with fat loss and does it impair glycogen stores. He may have wanted some more detail I doubt he was looking for speculative theories.

    Here's an important point though: when you tell someone with default knowledge that fasting increases fat oxidation they're very likely to think: 'yeah! fasting will make me lean and ripped!'. So that's why it's important to make the disclaimers I made. If you make those disclaimers in the future I won't have to comment like I did.
    I've got no problem with the additional information you provided. Since I only answered the explicit query of what happens during fasting, I think it was appropriate of you to add the implicit answer of what happens once feeding resumes. However, you saw my lack of including that implicit portion as confirmation that I am somehow attacking calorie balance. In reality I was just answering the question as directly as possible--"Here's a couple things that happen during fasting and here are my thoughts on the combination of fasting and training."


    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    Well the general tendency of the nutrition section of this forum is science based. Some of your assertions in this thread are a better fit for the misc section. Yes people post some serious speculation there too.

    Here you'll often be asked to back up your assertions with appropriate studies.
    I like studies just as much as the next guy, but as you've pointed out they can be highly flawed. Using them as a "screening tool" before entertaining any new logic or reasoning does not strike me as particularly scientific. It comes off as just wanting to maintain a stable understanding and only move it along at the pace of science, which can be very slow. Anyone interested in the thread can easily google terms like "metabolic flexibility", "meal time frequency", or "time-restricted feeding" and find thousands of hours worth of literature. Most of it being contradictory in some way.


    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    BTW, one more point about the people who believe they can't go without food for 5 hours. I believe they easily can, they're just underestimating their own capability to do so. I've fasted for 48 hours before without any training. Once I got over the mental hurdle it was easy.
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    when you're really looking for the potential health benefits 16 hours fasting is unlikely to make meaningful differences. But when fasting for longer periods muscle retention in well trained individuals won't be optimal.
    Couldn't agree with these statements more.


    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    Says who?

    Statements like this are prime example of the whole “here’s my idea, prove me wrong” attitude.

    You can’t just say something that sounds logical to you and expect people to believe it.

    What if I said that constantly varying your sleep schedule did the same thing in terms of ‘circadian flexibility’? Would you just blindly believe me?

    Example: I hereby posit that drastic weekly variations in sleep duration and waking hours enhance circadian flexibility and therefore improve sleep function. Periods of sleep deprivation (48-72 hours) without sleep, followed by several days of 12+ hours of rest per day, etc, are thus encouraged.

    Prove me wrong.
    Well in the particular example you are giving, yes, I would just blindly believe you. I spent years training that exact way in Marine Reconnaissance. The reason we trained that way was so that we would be flexible enough to handle whatever situation came up in the field. It was hard. It sucked. But it made us capable of high physical performance under extreme sleep and food deprivation. It increased our overall metabolic flexibility, but obviously if we had applied the same intensity to consistent programming then we would have been stronger at that specific program.

    As for your overall point, I get it. I'm being a bit of an ass with my opinion. But that's because I don't believe that I'm saying anything speculative or subjective. These are basic ideas that I didn't expect I would have to prove:
    • The body adapts to its environment
    • Repetitive stimuli enhance the adaptations that respond to that stimuli and mitigate the adaptations that do not
    • Novel stimuli force the body to respond with novel adaptations
    Anything beyond these basic points is just a discussion on personal preference. I prefer the flexibility associated with mixing things up because it causes the adaptations that I want.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #35
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 17,768
    Rep Power: 85695
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    Well in the particular example you are giving, yes, I would just blindly believe you. I spent years training that exact way in Marine Reconnaissance. The reason we trained that way was so that we would be flexible enough to handle whatever situation came up in the field. It was hard. It sucked. But it made us capable of high physical performance under extreme sleep and food deprivation. It increased our overall metabolic flexibility, but obviously if we had applied the same intensity to consistent programming then we would have been stronger at that specific program.

    But that's because I don't believe that I'm saying anything speculative or subjective. These are basic ideas that I didn't expect I would have to prove:
    • The body adapts to its environment
    • Repetitive stimuli enhance the adaptations that respond to that stimuli and mitigate the adaptations that do not
    • Novel stimuli force the body to respond with novel adaptations
    Anything beyond these basic points is just a discussion on personal preference. I prefer the flexibility associated with mixing things up because it causes the adaptations that I want.
    If you'll blindly just believe me, then I have nothing else to say, because that shows you don't require sufficient evidence to support your ideas. That's an issue of credibility.

    Second, your 3 bulleted points cannot simply be extrapolated to ALL biological processes (the body doesn't work that way), nor does it mean that's BETTER for metabolism.

    Finally, you say you 'prefer the flexibility of mixing things up'. Well, ok, but that's just you... N=1... that is not science... that is not proof...

    What you're doing sounds more like tricking your mind (not your body) to be less stressed out when you navigate a world filled with uncertainty. Fine, I get that, makes sense. There are monks who have trained themselves to withstand the pain of being kicked as hard as possible in the groin by a professional kick boxer... mind over matter, as they say.

    That is NOT the same thing as a biological, metabolic advantage or adaptation occurring due to your varied approach. It is not the same thing.

    Case in point: what if I asked you specifically to provide a study hypothesis to prove your position? What specific markers would you even look for to prove this idea of 'enhanced metabolism' you speak of? If you cannot measure it, you cannot prove it, not scientifically.

    Again, MENTALLY being able to overcome periods of scarcity is not the same as a biological adaptation to your lifestyle.
    Last edited by AdamWW; 11-07-2019 at 11:58 AM.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  6. #36
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    If you'll blindly just believe me, then I have nothing else to say, because that shows you don't require sufficient evidence to support your ideas. That's an issue of credibility.
    It's not like you claimed that the sky is green or something. You happened to pick an example that is pretty clear-cut. Obviously sleep schedules can be trained. Variance in sleep schedules will cause adaptations. Is that supposed to be provocative? If you (or the USMC) decide that sleep flexibility is important and valuable, then why would I need evidence to believe you? The adaptation you want to pursue is your value judgment.


    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    Second, your 3 bulleted points cannot simply be extrapolated to ALL biological processes (the body doesn't work that way), nor does it mean that's BETTER for metabolism.

    Finally, you say you 'prefer the flexibility of mixing things up'. Well, ok, but that's just you... N=1... that is not science... that is not proof...

    What you're doing sounds more like tricking your mind (not your body) to be less stressed out when you navigate a world filled with uncertainty. Fine, I get that, makes sense. There are monks who have trained themselves to withstand the pain of being kicked as hard as possible in the groin by a professional kick boxer... mind over matter, as they say.

    That is NOT the same thing as a biological, metabolic advantage or adaptation occurring due to your varied approach. It is not the same thing.
    Man, this really got off the rails. The real, measurable advantage of variable training is that the body's initial adaptation to a novel input is much more pronounced than that same adaptation will be after months of repetition. Hopefully this is not a controversial statement??

    For example, exercise routines are always, without exception, periodized and undulated so that when one adaptive mechanism begins to stall, another is fired up in its place. Extrapolating that concept to any other health topic such as nutrition, sleep, or stress should not be a logical stretch.

    Should we advocate that everyone follow some "optimal" workout routine and never deviate? Well for powerlifters or other athletes requiring specificity, we probably should. But the best way for the average Joe to continue to harvest gains is to occasionally rotate his crops. When the crops are rotated, meaning the training is periodized, Joe experiences a real, measurable improvement in his metabolic adaptations.


    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    Case in point: what if I asked you specifically to provide a study hypothesis to prove your position? What specific markers would you even look for to prove this idea of 'enhanced metabolism' you speak of? If you cannot measure it, you cannot prove it, not scientifically.

    Again, MENTALLY being able to overcome periods of scarcity is not the same as a biological adaptation to your lifestyle.
    In any study, the markers to look for are the adaptations caused by the intervention. I'm talking about actual metabolic processes--hormone signals, cellular activity, energy utilization, nutrient transport, etc. These processes are constantly sensing and responding to the environment, and they do their wizardry regardless of whether the input is mechanical stress applied to the muscle or nutrient timing infrequency or sleep deprivation.

    If I'm hearing you right, you want to know how I would study the benefits of metabolic flexibility. I'd do that by measuring what is already relatively succinct in the literature and extremely obvious using logical reasoning. I'd expect subjects with enhanced metabolic flexibility to show improvements in:
    • increased oxidative capacity (can eat massive amounts of calories at one time and burn most of it rather than store most of it)
    • hormonal sensitivity (in particular insulin, glucagon, leptin, and ghrelin)
    • oxidative stress caused by ROS
    • speed of conversion from glucose burn to fatty acid burn

    ***Edit to add:
    • accelerated MPS and MPB pathways
    • improved glycogen storage and mobilization
    • enhanced overall autophagy
    Last edited by rtpmarine; 11-07-2019 at 01:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #37
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 17,768
    Rep Power: 85695
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    It's not like you claimed that the sky is green or something. You happened to pick an example that is pretty clear-cut. Obviously sleep schedules can be trained. Variance in sleep schedules will cause adaptations. Is that supposed to be provocative? If you (or the USMC) decide that sleep flexibility is important and valuable, then why would I need evidence to believe you? The adaptation you want to pursue is your value judgment.




    Man, this really got off the rails. The real, measurable advantage of variable training is that the body's initial adaptation to a novel input is much more pronounced than that same adaptation will be after months of repetition. Hopefully this is not a controversial statement??

    For example, exercise routines are always, without exception, periodized and undulated so that when one adaptive mechanism begins to stall, another is fired up in its place. Extrapolating that concept to any other health topic such as nutrition, sleep, or stress should not be a logical stretch.

    Should we advocate that everyone follow some "optimal" workout routine and never deviate? Well for powerlifters or other athletes requiring specificity, we probably should. But the best way for the average Joe to continue to harvest gains is to occasionally rotate his crops. When the crops are rotated, meaning the training is periodized, Joe experiences a real, measurable improvement in his metabolic adaptations.




    In any study, the markers to look for are the adaptations caused by the intervention. I'm talking about actual metabolic processes--hormone signals, cellular activity, energy utilization, nutrient transport, etc. These processes are constantly sensing and responding to the environment, and they do their wizardry regardless of whether the input is mechanical stress applied to the muscle or nutrient timing infrequency or sleep deprivation.

    If I'm hearing you right, you want to know how I would study the benefits of metabolic flexibility. I'd do that by measuring what is already relatively succinct in the literature and extremely obvious using logical reasoning. I'd expect subjects with enhanced metabolic flexibility to show improvements in:
    • increased oxidative capacity (can eat massive amounts of calories at one time and burn most of it rather than store most of it)
    • hormonal sensitivity (in particular insulin, glucagon, leptin, and ghrelin)
    • oxidative stress caused by ROS
    • speed of conversion from glucose burn to fatty acid burn
    I'm getting kind of worn down on this subject honestly.

    I'll end with this:

    - There is no proof or evidence of your theory other than how you 'feel'
    - You cannot claim something is true simply because it sounds true or is related to something else that is true

    I dunno what else to say.

    If you enjoy it, cool... I'm just saying, this is all pseudo-science... and if you want to follow that, you're allowed to. Just don't suggest it is a truth, because it isn't... it's an idea.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  8. #38
    Registered User Heisman2's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2005
    Posts: 11,924
    Rep Power: 54673
    Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Heisman2 is offline
    I read through the whole link today. That doesn't say anything that supports the notion that one should eat things at different times or train in different ways to become more metabolically flexible. That link essentially says that a big difference between insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people is metabolic flexibility, and that exercise in general helps to improve metabolic flexibility.

    For anyone else, the link really isn't worth reading in my opinion if you're looking for anything actionable.

    There is emerging data of the concept of chrononutrition, where essentially not only does the whole body have a circadian rhythm but individual organs do to and for optimal performance going to sleep and waking up at the same time each day is ideal but also eating meals at similar times also my be optimal relative to changing things up. I can provide links if desired.
    Reply With Quote

  9. #39
    Registered User Strawng's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Age: 25
    Posts: 1,745
    Rep Power: 28183
    Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Strawng is offline
    Originally Posted by Heisman2 View Post
    There is emerging data of the concept of chrononutrition, where essentially not only does the whole body have a circadian rhythm but individual organs do to and for optimal performance going to sleep and waking up at the same time each day is ideal but also eating meals at similar times also my be optimal relative to changing things up. I can provide links if desired.
    Bingo. This is why people can be paradoxically ore tired from sleeping more, more hungry by eating more frequently, and vice versa. Whether you eat one meal per day or 8, consistency is key. That being said, most people do best somewhere between those two extremes. Kind if like, you know, everything else in life.

    The negative metabolic effects of working nightshifts are well documented, but they can be greatly mitigated by a consistent routine of sleeping and eating.

    Post-prandial glucose regulation is heavily affected by alterations in habitual meal timing patterns: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483233/.
    Last edited by Strawng; 11-07-2019 at 03:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  10. #40
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    AdamWW - Just want you to know that despite our philosophical differences on nutrition, I do respect your positions and your ability to meticulously control your own nutrition. I'm not trying to be your antagonist, it just seems to be working out that way.

    Originally Posted by Heisman2 View Post
    I read through the whole link today. That doesn't say anything that supports the notion that one should eat things at different times or train in different ways to become more metabolically flexible. That link essentially says that a big difference between insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people is metabolic flexibility, and that exercise in general helps to improve metabolic flexibility.

    For anyone else, the link really isn't worth reading in my opinion if you're looking for anything actionable.
    As I said To Mrpb, I included that link as evidence that I'm not making the concept up out of thin air, not to prove what interventions create metabolic flexibility. That being said, it sounds like we read two totally different articles. The article that I read talked about various effects to both muscle and adipose tissue (subcutaneous and visceral) given the dynamic transitions from fasting-to-feeding and resting-to-exercise. It constantly referred to the various distinctions between relatively healthy people and relatively unhealthy people.

    Originally Posted by Heisman2 View Post
    There is emerging data of the concept of chrononutrition, where essentially not only does the whole body have a circadian rhythm but individual organs do to and for optimal performance going to sleep and waking up at the same time each day is ideal but also eating meals at similar times also my be optimal relative to changing things up. I can provide links if desired.
    You got me on this one--I can't argue with that. This is why studies into the effects of Ramadan fasting are so mixed. Most of them only eat after the sun goes does, some of them eat before sunrise. It's a mess and it muddles the otherwise self-evident benefits of fasting.

    I'd caveat your statement that "eating meals at similar times also may be optimal" by pointing out that optimal is still a subjective term. Optimal to what? If the goal is metabolic flexibility, then the primary circadian consideration is probably just to avoid eating at night.

    Consider that animals have no way of eating at similar times every day, so it would be unexpected for nature to design us with some sort of optimization in that routine. I'd love to read any articles you have on the subject.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #41
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 17,768
    Rep Power: 85695
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post

    I'd caveat your statement that "eating meals at similar times also may be optimal" by pointing out that optimal is still a subjective term. Optimal to what? If the goal is metabolic flexibility, then the primary circadian consideration is probably just to avoid eating at night.

    Consider that animals have no way of eating at similar times every day, so it would be unexpected for nature to design us with some sort of optimization in that routine. I'd love to read any articles you have on the subject.
    He just said 'for optimal performance', so my guess is physical strength, energy, etc... that isn't subjective.

    What is subjective, though, is what being 'optimal' would be for metabolism. Again, you've suggested that you can optimize 'metabolic flexibility', even though 'metabolic flexibility' is a nebulous concept in and of itself. So not only is your use of 'optimal' subjective, your use of the term 'metabolically flexible' is also not clear....

    If you're talking about being able to randomly 'feel' better or more energized regardless of when and what you eat, then to be honest I don't think you'll ever feel as good with random adjustments to your intake as you would adhering to a consistent protocol long-term.

    Imagine going KETO for 3 weeks, then doing OMAD with high carbs for 2 weeks, then Low-Carb High Fat for 1 week, then Fasting for 3 days followed by 3x your daily needs in a single day to compensate...

    I fail to see how the constant changes in your intake choices or schedule would be 'optimal' considering you'll never stick to a single regimen long enough to adapt.

    Sure, you might mentally get used to living an annoying lifestyle... but that's like saying it's 'optimal' to slap myself in the face once every hour because then I'll be primed for face-slapping. OK, so what?

    What you're basically saying is that fasting is a useful tool for mentally tolerating a sub-optimal energy environment... who in the world wants that, and how does it relate to athletic performance?
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  12. #42
    Registered User Heisman2's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2005
    Posts: 11,924
    Rep Power: 54673
    Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Heisman2 is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    AdamWW - Just want you to know that despite our philosophical differences on nutrition, I do respect your positions and your ability to meticulously control your own nutrition. I'm not trying to be your antagonist, it just seems to be working out that way.



    As I said To Mrpb, I included that link as evidence that I'm not making the concept up out of thin air, not to prove what interventions create metabolic flexibility. That being said, it sounds like we read two totally different articles. The article that I read talked about various effects to both muscle and adipose tissue (subcutaneous and visceral) given the dynamic transitions from fasting-to-feeding and resting-to-exercise. It constantly referred to the various distinctions between relatively healthy people and relatively unhealthy people.
    I agree with that but they linked it pretty much completely to being lean vs obese or simply practicing generally healthy lifestyle habits (meaning exercise), not in any way to varying the timing of nutrition or varying exercise modalities. Essentially lean people with good insulin sensitivity have more metabolic flexibility, exercise enhances this, and there is a feedback loop such that more exercise further enhances the flexibility.

    You got me on this one--I can't argue with that. This is why studies into the effects of Ramadan fasting are so mixed. Most of them only eat after the sun goes does, some of them eat before sunrise. It's a mess and it muddles the otherwise self-evident benefits of fasting.

    I'd caveat your statement that "eating meals at similar times also may be optimal" by pointing out that optimal is still a subjective term. Optimal to what? If the goal is metabolic flexibility, then the primary circadian consideration is probably just to avoid eating at night.
    Agreed practically that you will likely get most benefits from avoiding eating at night. If the goal is metabolic flexiblity then based on the link you provided simply being lean and exercising well while increasing insulin sensitivity will suffice. There are a couple papers showing more beneficial effects of consuming more calories earlier in the day (possibly because insulin sensitivity is greater in the morning), but from a practical standpoint I have not seen anything that suggests for generally healthy people this will matter significantly.

    Consider that animals have no way of eating at similar times every day, so it would be unexpected for nature to design us with some sort of optimization in that routine. I'd love to read any articles you have on the subject.
    Well there are lots of studies showing altering the timing of eating for mice changes things significantly, but it's hard to translate to humans as mice have "active" (at night) and "inactive" (during the day) periods that seem quite correlated to a lot of metabolic properties. I'll provide some links to things tomorrow.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #43
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    He just said 'for optimal performance', so my guess is physical strength, energy, etc... that isn't subjective.

    What is subjective, though, is what being 'optimal' would be for metabolism. Again, you've suggested that you can optimize 'metabolic flexibility', even though 'metabolic flexibility' is a nebulous concept in and of itself. So not only is your use of 'optimal' subjective, your use of the term 'metabolically flexible' is also not clear....

    If you're talking about being able to randomly 'feel' better or more energized regardless of when and what you eat, then to be honest I don't think you'll ever feel as good with random adjustments to your intake as you would adhering to a consistent protocol long-term.

    Imagine going KETO for 3 weeks, then doing OMAD with high carbs for 2 weeks, then Low-Carb High Fat for 1 week, then Fasting for 3 days followed by 3x your daily needs in a single day to compensate...

    I fail to see how the constant changes in your intake choices or schedule would be 'optimal' considering you'll never stick to a single regimen long enough to adapt.

    Sure, you might mentally get used to living an annoying lifestyle... but that's like saying it's 'optimal' to slap myself in the face once every hour because then I'll be primed for face-slapping. OK, so what?

    What you're basically saying is that fasting is a useful tool for mentally tolerating a sub-optimal energy environment... who in the world wants that, and how does it relate to athletic performance?
    In no way am I advocating for constantly changing every variable every day, creating masochistic chaos for yourself. I originally only intended to point out that 16/8 breakfast-skipping IF is pretty much identical to normal eating after just a few weeks. So if someone wants to use it for a long time, then they should occasionally vary their approach to it. Or cycle in and out of it.

    Going back to the analogy of periodized exercise regimens, the idea is to find the "sweet spot" of time spent in a particular methodology where you have gained beneficial adaptations but are not yet straying into the realm of diminished returns. Any intervention, such as an eating protocol or an exercise routine, should be run until that sweet spot. If the intervention is continued beyond that sweet spot, then it is not really providing adaptation but rather convenience and/or maintenance.


    My first several posts in this thread all clearly stated that my recommendation is to vary intermittent fasting methodology so as to reap the metabolic benefits of it for longer. Obviously those benefits eventually dry up no matter how much you try to vary it. Then you have to either graduate to multi-day fasts, or just go back to normal eating for a while.
    Reply With Quote

  14. #44
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 17,768
    Rep Power: 85695
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    In no way am I advocating for constantly changing every variable every day, creating masochistic chaos for yourself. I originally only intended to point out that 16/8 breakfast-skipping IF is pretty much identical to normal eating after just a few weeks. So if someone wants to use it for a long time, then they should occasionally vary their approach to it. Or cycle in and out of it.

    Going back to the analogy of periodized exercise regimens, the idea is to find the "sweet spot" of time spent in a particular methodology where you have gained beneficial adaptations but are not yet straying into the realm of diminished returns. Any intervention, such as an eating protocol or an exercise routine, should be run until that sweet spot. If the intervention is continued beyond that sweet spot, then it is not really providing adaptation but rather convenience and/or maintenance.


    My first several posts in this thread all clearly stated that my recommendation is to vary intermittent fasting methodology so as to reap the metabolic benefits of it for longer. Obviously those benefits eventually dry up no matter how much you try to vary it. Then you have to either graduate to multi-day fasts, or just go back to normal eating for a while.
    IF doesnt offer a metabolic benefit....
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  15. #45
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by Heisman2 View Post
    I agree with that but they linked it pretty much completely to being lean vs obese or simply practicing generally healthy lifestyle habits (meaning exercise), not in any way to varying the timing of nutrition or varying exercise modalities. Essentially lean people with good insulin sensitivity have more metabolic flexibility, exercise enhances this, and there is a feedback loop such that more exercise further enhances the flexibility.

    Agreed practically that you will likely get most benefits from avoiding eating at night. If the goal is metabolic flexiblity then based on the link you provided simply being lean and exercising well while increasing insulin sensitivity will suffice.
    I really like all of your logic but ehhhh it gets a little hairy when you conflate the lean/obese paradigm with the healthy/unhealthy paradigm. The reason lean people tend to be insulin sensitive is because they are constantly exposed to relative hypoglycemia. Despite this, there are plenty of skinny people who develop insulin resistance and become diabetic, just as there are plenty of fat people who stay happily insulin sensitive and never develop metabolic disorders. The real stick of dynamite is in the problematic inability of the body to switch between insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance as needed.

    Scientific articles always prize insulin sensitivity because the biggest healthcare issue today is IR-driven T2D and resultant obesity. So yeah, insulin sensitivity is good for solving that problem. But imagine if you're in a traumatic accident and suffer multiple injuries. Your body is going to need to get insulin resistant in a hurry in order to save glucose for the immune system and brain. A healthy person should be able to access both insulinemic functions. Since hypoglycemia drives insulin sensitivity and hyperglycemia drives insulin resistance, the pathological implication of existing in either a hypoglycemic or a hyperglycemic state is that your body becomes highly adapted to only one side of the insulinemic coin.

    Metabolic flexibility theorizes that:
    • people who are chronically insulin resistant (regardless of obesity) highly benefit from occasional exposure to insulin sensitivity (fasting, calorie restriction, low-carb, etc.)
    • people who are chronically insulin sensitive (regardless of leanness) highly benefit from occasional exposure to insulin resistance (gorging, refeeds, high-carb, etc.)
    • people who always hang out in the middle have a decreased risk of mitigating either function, but they also have decreased magnitude of insulinemic response because they never push either side's limits.

    With that diatribe out of the way, I gotta say that you're 100% spot-on about exercise. In my first post I recommended to occasionally train fed and occasionally train fasted because I believe that exercise really accentuates the flexibility that comes with either state.
    Reply With Quote

  16. #46
    Registered User Heisman2's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2005
    Posts: 11,924
    Rep Power: 54673
    Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Heisman2 is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    I really like all of your logic but ehhhh it gets a little hairy when you conflate the lean/obese paradigm with the healthy/unhealthy paradigm. The reason lean people tend to be insulin sensitive is because they are constantly exposed to relative hypoglycemia. Despite this, there are plenty of skinny people who develop insulin resistance and become diabetic, just as there are plenty of fat people who stay happily insulin sensitive and never develop metabolic disorders. The real stick of dynamite is in the problematic inability of the body to switch between insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance as needed.
    It's true you can be lean with insulin resistance or obese without insulin resistance but the majority of the time people who are leaner will have better insulin sensitivity. Most studies do not test the lean people and separate them based on insulin resistance (same with obese people) and rather just lump lean people vs obese people. Since it's a minority that don't have the typically associated insulin sensitivity that somewhat washes out. It's not clear to me how many of the lean people who develop type 2 diabetes do so due to MODY (mature onset diabetes of the young, due to genetic mutations) as many are not diagnosed. Also even "metabolically healthy" obese people tend to not be quite as metabolically healthy as lean individuals.

    Do you have a link regarding relative hypoglycemia aiding insulin sensitivity? I've never heard that.

    Scientific articles always prize insulin sensitivity because the biggest healthcare issue today is IR-driven T2D and resultant obesity. So yeah, insulin sensitivity is good for solving that problem. But imagine if you're in a traumatic accident and suffer multiple injuries. Your body is going to need to get insulin resistant in a hurry in order to save glucose for the immune system and brain. A healthy person should be able to access both insulinemic functions. Since hypoglycemia drives insulin sensitivity and hyperglycemia drives insulin resistance, the pathological implication of existing in either a hypoglycemic or a hyperglycemic state is that your body becomes highly adapted to only one side of the insulinemic coin.
    When in a traumatic accident with multiple injuries stress in the body can go up a lot, and due to multiple physiologic mechanisms this leads to significant hyperglycemia. We actually at times have to treat these patients with insulin drips to bring their glucose levels down. Being in a healthy metabolic state prior to the trauma does not preclude one from experiencing significant glucose dysregulation after trauma occurs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2787037/

    Metabolic flexibility theorizes that:
    • people who are chronically insulin resistant (regardless of obesity) highly benefit from occasional exposure to insulin sensitivity (fasting, calorie restriction, low-carb, etc.)
    • people who are chronically insulin sensitive (regardless of leanness) highly benefit from occasional exposure to insulin resistance (gorging, refeeds, high-carb, etc.)
    • people who always hang out in the middle have a decreased risk of mitigating either function, but they also have decreased magnitude of insulinemic response because they never push either side's limits.
    I would argue that refeeds/high-carb does not actually induce any state of insulin resistance (when done in isolation for soone who is otherwise insulin sensitive), rather it does cause a relative spike in insulin but if the body accommodates well that implies no resistance. There is some thought that repetitive blood glucose swings can make one more likely to become insulin resistance (hence consuming fast absorbing high sugary content foods in isolation regularly can be damaging even if otherwise employing healthy eating behaviors).

    With that diatribe out of the way, I gotta say that you're 100% spot-on about exercise. In my first post I recommended to occasionally train fed and occasionally train fasted because I believe that exercise really accentuates the flexibility that comes with either state.
    There is probably some merit to regularly training in a fed or fasted state if you intend compete under one of those conditions, but I still don't recall ever reading anything to suggest that training under both conditions will lead to improvements in energy utilization pathways all around. It does make some sense though if different enzyme pathways are used in both conditions that training under both conditions will keep expression levels of said enzymes elevated, so I could see in theory why that may be helpful. I don't know if this has actually been studied.
    Reply With Quote

  17. #47
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by Heisman2 View Post
    It's true you can be lean with insulin resistance or obese without insulin resistance but the majority of the time people who are leaner will have better insulin sensitivity. Most studies do not test the lean people and separate them based on insulin resistance (same with obese people) and rather just lump lean people vs obese people. Since it's a minority that don't have the typically associated insulin sensitivity that somewhat washes out. It's not clear to me how many of the lean people who develop type 2 diabetes do so due to MODY (mature onset diabetes of the young, due to genetic mutations) as many are not diagnosed. Also even "metabolically healthy" obese people tend to not be quite as metabolically healthy as lean individuals.

    Do you have a link regarding relative hypoglycemia aiding insulin sensitivity? I've never heard that.
    All of the primary treatments for insulin resistance use hypoglycemia in some form. Exercise, weight loss, carb reduction, even drugs like metformin all treat the problem by lowering blood sugar temporarily. That, in turn, causes insulin to back off just enough that the cellular receptors can take a break.

    GLUT4 is one of those receptors which primarily transports glucose into the cell. By manipulating GLUT4 expression (mostly via manipulation of mRNA transcription) you can dramatically affect how the cell responds to insulin. This explains those rare obese-but-insulin-sensitive or lean-but-insulin-resistant individuals. One of the effects of insulin is that it down-regulates the effects of GLUT4, implying that low insulin levels (which come from low blood sugar levels) up-regulate GLUT4. This is not the only receptor that gets down-regulated by insulin, but it is one of the better studied ones.

    Insulin down-regulates expression of the insulin-responsive glucose transporter (GLUT4) gene: effects on transcription and mRNA turnover.

    A cool little side note is that muscle contractions are known to cause muscle cells to move GLUT4 from within the cell out towards the cell membrane, allowing the cell to readily take in glucose. If you've ever consumed a ton of carbs right before high-repetition lifting, you know that "The Pump" is real.


    Originally Posted by Heisman2 View Post
    When in a traumatic accident with multiple injuries stress in the body can go up a lot, and due to multiple physiologic mechanisms this leads to significant hyperglycemia. We actually at times have to treat these patients with insulin drips to bring their glucose levels down. Being in a healthy metabolic state prior to the trauma does not preclude one from experiencing significant glucose dysregulation after trauma occurs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2787037/
    Very interesting read, especially Scalea's conclusions. This sounds like which comes first, the chicken or the egg? You might see the hyperglycemia as coming first, but I see the insulin response as driving the hyperglycemia. I think the body uses whatever signals it can to achieve hyperglycemia so that the person can do whatever they need to do to survive. In that context, the risks associated with hyperglycemia become trivial compared to the risk of not having enough sugar to get out of dodge. The correlation of trauma-induced hyperglycemia with increased morbidity only indicates that a more traumatic event will cause a more pronounced increase in glycemia. Obviously I would expect more severe insulin resistance in someone who just got shot 5 times vs. someone who scrapped their knee. The guy who got shot 5 times is indeed more likely to die, but not because he was more hyperglycemic. It's because his trauma was worse. Which is what made him more insulin resistant and therefore more hyperglycemic.

    IMO the fact that the medical community would try to tinker with such an adaptive response is a classic example of human hubris. But I guess as Chappelle said, modern problems require modern solutions.
    Reply With Quote

  18. #48
    Registered User Heisman2's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2005
    Posts: 11,924
    Rep Power: 54673
    Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Heisman2 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Heisman2 is offline
    rtpmarine, diabetic medications due not purposely induce hypoglycemia. The sulfonylureas can (as can insulin of course) but we try to dose them such that hypoglycemic does not occur. Metformin certainly does not in any way come close to inducing hypoglycemia. You also don't have to go low carb; the Ma-Pi 2 diet is a high carb macrobiotic diet that can also be helpful for insulin resistance/diabetes. I agree all diabetic treatments are aimed at bringing the glucose levels down though; I just don't want people to read and think we try to purposely cause glucose levels to get too low as we try to avoid that at all costs.

    A shorter more recent read regarding GLUT4 for anyone curious: https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ent-Manner.pdf

    I definitely see the hyperglycemia coming first. With massive trauma and a big spike in cortisol that alone will cause a significant rise in glucose. While insulin brings down glucose, the counterregulatory hormones (cortisol, glucagon, epinephrine, growth hormone) all increase it. In trauma there is a huge spike in cortisol and with increased sympathetic nervous system activity there is also an increase in epinephrine. Per that link there is also a big increase in glucagon (I hadn't realized this until reading the above). The cortisol and glucagon function on very short time scales to increase glucose (we actually treat hypoglycemic patients with diabetes who overdose on insulin with glucagon and it works rapidly), while insulin resistance itself would have a bit of a longer timescale for onset. The more severe the hyperglycemia the worse the patients do; it's not just linked to the underlying injury as if that were the case then bringing down the blood glucose levels with an insulin drip wouldn't be helpful (it is helpful to do this). Agreed with the general notion the body is doing what it can to survive; that's why it releases the cortisol and other hormones in the first place. Cortisol does a lot of things other than just bring up blood glucose (look up Cushing Disease or Cushing Syndrome for an idea of all of the things that can happen with too much cortisol); in the case of trauma it can work too well with respect to the hyperglycemia aspect.

    I said I would provide a link to a paper on chrononutrition above; do you have access to papers that are not open-access? If so this is a good read: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...333?via%3Dihub

    Also haven't read this (yet) but this looks like a more recent review on metabolic flexibility if you're interested: https://watermark.silverchair.com/er...HzASWGOgLv0AnW
    Reply With Quote

  19. #49
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    You're right--poor choice of words on my part. I've been using the term "hypoglycemia" to refer to relatively low blood sugar. I didn't mean to say that treatments for insulin resistance or hyperinsulinemia aim to get blood sugar below 60 mg/dL or whatever the threshold is for clinical hypoglycemia.

    As for the trauma-induced hyperglycemia, I assume that the natural effect is probably just extremely pronounced because the general population is so hyperglycemic to begin with (and in turn so insulin resistant). I'd like to see if Scalea's results get repeated when hyperinsulinemia and obesity are controlled. It's tragic to think that such a protective natural defense mechanism could be pushed over the edge just because our society can't or won't address the problem of hyperglycemia. That was why I used the "modern problems require modern solutions" meme.

    Since the trauma example went to ****, some other examples of beneficial insulin resistance are people eating a carnivore diet, or bodybuilders whose lives depend on the ability to become insulin resistant if they OD on insulin.

    Thanks for engaging me on this topic. It's a breath of fresh air to go back and forth with someone who has more to say than "fasting has no benefits other than convenience".
    Reply With Quote

  20. #50
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 17,768
    Rep Power: 85695
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    You're right--poor choice of words on my part. I've been using the term "hypoglycemia" to refer to relatively low blood sugar. I didn't mean to say that treatments for insulin resistance or hyperinsulinemia aim to get blood sugar below 60 mg/dL or whatever the threshold is for clinical hypoglycemia.

    As for the trauma-induced hyperglycemia, I assume that the natural effect is probably just extremely pronounced because the general population is so hyperglycemic to begin with (and in turn so insulin resistant). I'd like to see if Scalea's results get repeated when hyperinsulinemia and obesity are controlled. It's tragic to think that such a protective natural defense mechanism could be pushed over the edge just because our society can't or won't address the problem of hyperglycemia. That was why I used the "modern problems require modern solutions" meme.

    Since the trauma example went to ****, some other examples of beneficial insulin resistance are people eating a carnivore diet, or bodybuilders whose lives depend on the ability to become insulin resistant if they OD on insulin.

    Thanks for engaging me on this topic. It's a breath of fresh air to go back and forth with someone who has more to say than "fasting has no benefits other than convenience".
    in the overwhelming majority of cases, it doesnt... we tend to speak to the majority, not fringe applications
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  21. #51
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    in the overwhelming majority of cases, it doesnt... we tend to speak to the majority, not fringe applications
    No, you only speak to things that are directly related to energy balance. That is all that matters to you. Nutrition is so much more.

    This whole thread went to **** because you guys freaked out that I said fasting increases gluconeogenesis and fat oxidation. That was it. I said something that is unequivocally true, and the response from the forum ivory tower was that I'm all wrong because I didn't include what happens during feeding (despite that having nothing to do with OPs question). That doesn't strike you as being a little bit obsessive?

    Let me ask you this: what aspects of nutrition not related to energy balance do you care about? Do things like autophagy, reduced oxidative stress, or access to ketosis fit the bill? All are byproducts of fasting.
    Reply With Quote

  22. #52
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 17,768
    Rep Power: 85695
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    No, you only speak to things that are directly related to energy balance. That is all that matters to you. Nutrition is so much more.

    This whole thread went to **** because you guys freaked out that I said fasting increases gluconeogenesis and fat oxidation. That was it. I said something that is unequivocally true, and the response from the forum ivory tower was that I'm all wrong because I didn't include what happens during feeding (despite that having nothing to do with OPs question). That doesn't strike you as being a little bit obsessive?

    Let me ask you this: what aspects of nutrition not related to energy balance do you care about? Do things like autophagy, reduced oxidative stress, or access to ketosis fit the bill? All are byproducts of fasting.
    Actually no, I speak about much more than that, but my focus areas tend to be rooted in proven concepts and not theories with no actual backing to them other than you trying to formulate novel terms based on what sounds logical to you. Nobody questions that you burn more fat when you're fasting... that's kind of obvious.

    MY issue was with your far-fetch 'metabolic flexibility' diatribe.

    This thread was asking about intermittent fasting on a BODYBUILDING website. In this context, 99.9% of questions are coming from a few common perspectives:

    - Will it help me lose fat?
    - Will it help me gain muscle?
    - Will it help me perform better at my sport?

    What am I interested in besides energy balance? If anything, personally, I would say energy balance is way, WAY down on the list of priorities.

    I prioritize performance in the gym (strength), mood, sleep, digestion, longevity/disease prevention, and of course taste and enjoyment when it comes to nutrition/food.

    It is you, I have to say, who spun this discussion out of control by making the quantum leap into the hypothetical which applies to basically nobody here.

    Perhaps you need to refer to the original posts by the OP:

    "maybe someone else wants to take this one, but what are the effects on the body? (stuff like fat breakdown, glycogen, all that stuff.)

    how does training combine with intermittent fasting, what's the idea here?"



    Like I said, in the context of OP's question, YOU went off the rails... not I.

    For example, THIS is a ludicrous statement:

    "You have to change it up often in order to keep the gravy train rollin’. That means fasting for 16 hours one day, then not fasting, then fasting for 36 hours, then not fasting, then fasting for 20 hours, etc. Mix it up just like you would with your training. Sometimes train fasted, sometimes train fed. Always be training with the goal of forcing the adaptation that YOU want. Don’t get into a protocol like IF just for the hell of it."

    Mixing up your feeding times is NOT going to optimize your training energy... if anything it will take AWAY from it because your body's energy will be less stable. Yeah, you'll mentally get more used to a messed up schedule, but that messed up schedule is still messed up.
    Last edited by AdamWW; 11-09-2019 at 06:36 PM.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  23. #53
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 28,984
    Rep Power: 145763
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    However, you saw my lack of including that implicit portion as confirmation that I am somehow attacking calorie balance.
    No I did not see it like that. I've already explained it but I will explain it one more time: people with limited knowledge of nutrition tend to think that increased fat oxidation means more fat loss. I added the part that it doesn't lead to more fat loss when calories are matched for the OP. Not for you. I wasn't addressing you. If I was I would have quoted you.

    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    This whole thread went to **** because you guys freaked out that I said fasting increases gluconeogenesis and fat oxidation. That was it.
    You may want to read back what I actually wrote:

    Before anyone misunderstands what's being said above: intermittent fasting does not cause more fat loss than a normal calorie restricted diet when macros are matched. The fact that it temporarily increases fat oxidation does not make a difference for 24h fat loss.

    Use IF if makes it easier for you to adhere to your calories or if you prefer it. The rest is largely nonsense.

    And keep in mind that IF is not optimal for muscle gain and retention because it's been shown to reduce 24h MPS and testosterone. But plenty of people still get good results with it regardless. Why? Because lifting and eating sufficient protein are relatively more important than meal timing.
    Does that seem like someone "freaking out"? FYI: I was totally calm when I wrote this.

    And now read your own response to it:
    LOL Imagine being so myopically focused on calories that you can't even answer OP's question. Dude comes in here and asks what happens during fasting, and you all go into rants about calorie balance ???
    If anyone comes close to ranting or freaking out it's you.

    And you citing a study that didn't support your claims is another example of obfuscation. If you were actually aware that the study didn't support your claims you should have mentioned it didn't.

    PS. I don't believe you were aware (you'll probably deny that though), you just Googled metabolic flexibility and that was the first hit (it is) and you just assumed it supported your claims.

    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    Do things like autophagy, reduced oxidative stress, or access to ketosis fit the bill? All are byproducts of fasting.
    If I believed in them the way you do I would probably be super excited about fasting. But you're overrating these "benefits", especially in the context of lean, healthy eating, exercising individuals.

    Access to ketosis? I already have that and barely use it. Don't see it as a benefit to be in ketosis.

    Autophagy? Far more controversial than fasting fans will admit. Many good examples in the literature that cover the potential negative effects of autophagy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1705980/

    Reduced oxidative stress? Exercise already does that for me. Fasting studies that find a meaningful reduction were done in people that didn't exercise or very little. Some fasting studies even actively exclude people that exercise.

    Long story short: I don't see meaningful health benefits coming from fasting for active, healthy eating, exercising, relatively lean individuals.

    The only study that came close to being relevant for this population (Moro 2016) failed to match calories between the IF group and normal diet group.
    Reply With Quote

  24. #54
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 147
    Rep Power: 996
    rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500) rtpmarine is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Takes breath #1

    OP is just a noob who only cares about fat loss because he is probably fat

    Takes breath #2

    No meaningful benefits to fasting for active, healthy, lean individuals
    I've already made this point several times but I'll say it again: you guys don't have an objective interest in getting things right, you just want to continue to promote the same principles that you always have. Maybe this is because those principles work really well, or maybe it is because of ego. I don't know, but I do know that there is a valuable conversation to be had about fasting that has nothing to do with calories.

    I'm disengaging now so that we can all move on. I'm sure we'll get to lock horns again soon.
    Reply With Quote

  25. #55
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 28,984
    Rep Power: 145763
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is offline
    Now you're just putting words in our mouth. I've never claimed he only cares about fat loss nor have I claimed he is fat.

    Please stop these tactics. And please stop blowing smoke around this topic. If not, we'll have to keep correcting you.
    Reply With Quote

  26. #56
    No avi phaggot 3maj's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2012
    Posts: 2,076
    Rep Power: 10464
    3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) 3maj is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    3maj is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post

    I'm disengaging now so that we can all move on. I'm sure we'll get to lock horns again soon.
    Thanks, and let's hope not. You're consistently spreading misinformation, and I am quite in awe of how patient people here are with you.
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts