Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IF - Catabolic state or HGH release

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IF - Catabolic state or HGH release

    I am new to IF and have a question that I'm sure has been discussed before on this site. I always thought that skipping a meal (especially breakfast)puts your body in catabolic state and slows down your metabolism. However, I'm now reading that training while in fasting state stimulates HGH.

    Any thoughts?

    Thanks
    Jack

  • #2
    It doesn't.
    "The problem with quoting someone on the Internet is, you never know if it's legit" - Abraham Lincoln

    Comment


    • #3
      IF doesn't put you catabolic state or it doesn't stimulate HGH?

      Which one?
      thanks

      Comment


      • #4
        No serious catabolism in one or two or even three days of fasting. Check out Mark's blog posts on this subject by searching the bigger search bar on the top of the homepage.

        Fasting only helps me add muscle! One meal a day is plenty for many people, especially males.
        Crohn's, doing SCD

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jackson44 View Post
          I am new to IF and have a question that I'm sure has been discussed before on this site. I always thought that skipping a meal (especially breakfast)puts your body in catabolic state and slows down your metabolism.
          Seems legit; I mean you must eat every three hours to stoke the metabolic fire, right? I think you should also start setting your alarm at three hour intervals throughout the night so you don't risk sleeping for more than three hours without a meal as this could be disastrous due to large amounts of muscle catabolism which occur during sleep (which is technically a fast, after all)...

          I imagine that if you do this, you'll be tight, thick, and swole in a couple of weeks.
          http://stackingplates.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jackson44 View Post
            IF doesn't put you catabolic state or it doesn't stimulate HGH?

            Which one?
            thanks
            It's not catabolic (short-term < ~72 hours) and fasting stimulates growth hormone production (promotes beta-oxidation "fat burning"). The whole point in the growth hormone increase is to preserve lean muscle while in the fasted state.
            "The problem with quoting someone on the Internet is, you never know if it's legit" - Abraham Lincoln

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
              Seems legit; I mean you must eat every three hours to stoke the metabolic fire, right? I think you should also start setting your alarm at three hour intervals throughout the night so you don't risk sleeping for more than three hours without a meal as this could be disastrous due to large amounts of muscle catabolism which occur during sleep (which is technically a fast, after all)...

              I imagine that if you do this, you'll be tight, thick, and swole in a couple of weeks.
              oh man, I've been doing it so wrong...

              Comment


              • #8
                Same for blinking! Keep your eyes closed too long, and your eyes will atrophy! It's proven!

                But, with all due respect, this is a great question. I hope you will try intermittent fasting! The first couple of days, even if you are already a fat-burner, can be a challenge. But by the end of week one it's smooth sailing for most. That's for the one-meal-a-day version of IF, which I hold dear.
                Crohn's, doing SCD

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
                  Seems legit; I mean you must eat every three hours to stoke the metabolic fire, right? I think you should also start setting your alarm at three hour intervals throughout the night so you don't risk sleeping for more than three hours without a meal as this could be disastrous due to large amounts of muscle catabolism which occur during sleep (which is technically a fast, after all)...

                  I imagine that if you do this, you'll be tight, thick, and swole in a couple of weeks.
                  Don't forget your tupperware, bro!!!
                  "The problem with quoting someone on the Internet is, you never know if it's legit" - Abraham Lincoln

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Fernaldo View Post
                    Don't forget your tupperware, bro!!!
                    Packing ten deep today...once I went 3:01 without food and lost an inch from my biceps. True story...
                    http://stackingplates.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ask yourself how long human beings have had refrigeration and preserved foods. You'll likely reach the conclusion I did - for 99.99% of human evolution, we couldn't store food well and it would have been impossible to eat within a short time of waking up with any notable regularity. It would likely take hours on average to hunt and gather breakfast, so the traditional "breakfast" is probably a late lunch. If our metabolism slowed down with intermittent fasting, we would have died off as a species eons ago. If you want something that is unnatural for humans, look into "grazing" and what we currently consider "breakfast" - it's human nature to skip breakfast and eat a huge dinner with no snacking, but "doctors" and "nutritionists" recommend the exact opposite. Which seems correct to you?

                      It takes something like 72+ hours of fasting before the metabolic rate downregulates noticeably. From what I've read, ~16 hours seems to be a good fast for health. However, I'd recommend against CHRONIC FASTING. Forcing yourself to IF every single day isn't healthy unless you simply do not get hungry. Females seem to be more prone to the negative effects of chronic fasting than men. YMMV. I don't eat til ~12:30pm daily because I don't get hungry til ~11:00am, so I see no reason to eat if I'm not hungry. If you're starving by 8:00am and force yourself to adhere to some arbitrary 16 hour fasting window, I'd advise against that outside of irregular occasions. Every now and again I think it's healthy for all of us to go hungry for a long time (24+ hours), but that shouldn't be a routine IMO.
                      Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 08-22-2012, 01:31 PM.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I still get the "that can't be good for you" at work all the time, when I don't order lunch with them, or bring anything to have. I just nod, or say "whatever you say". Though, 2 of them eat every 3 hours and have been trying to lose weight for the last 9 months and have been mostly unsuccessful.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          ...so the traditional "breakfast" is probably a late lunch.
                          So by skipping breakfast in favor of the late lunch then the late lunch in this case is a breakfast...wait, what?
                          http://stackingplates.com/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by stackingplates View Post
                            so by skipping breakfast in favor of the late lunch then the late lunch in this case is a breakfast...wait, what?
                            mind=blown!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              Ask yourself how long human beings have had refrigeration and preserved foods. You'll likely reach the conclusion I did - for 99.99% of human evolution, we couldn't store food well and it would have been impossible to eat within a short time of waking up with any notable regularity. It would likely take hours on average to hunt and gather breakfast, so the traditional "breakfast" is probably a late lunch.
                              While I agree with 100% of what you wrote, I think most pre-paleo, paleo, and later people planned ahead and left some supper to be eaten in the morning...leftovers if you will. If they were cooking their meat, they could pick at the bones/marrow next morning. I have kind of changed my thinking to believe we evolved to eat upon awakening due to the fact that leptin levels and some other key hunger hormones are in the 'feed me now' state early in the morning. When reading the accounts of the Inuit, they always had a big feast of frozen fish upon waking, then went about their day hunting and fishing.

                              That said, I tend to IF through breakfast every day and 42 hours once a week. It makes me feel fantastic and lets me control my hunger like never before.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X