Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Thread: Question to IFers - Eating perfectly (relatively speaking) or IF? page

  1. #1
    dboxing's Avatar
    dboxing is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    458

    Question to IFers - Eating perfectly (relatively speaking) or IF?

    Just would like your thoughts, starting with the presumption that everyone has a limited amount of willpower, in other words, you can’t do everything right all the time. Which provides the most return on investment? True example, a couple I know decides to “get healthy” or rather, get “healthier”. They don’t eat SAD, they eat basically Primal, but more like 70/30 instead of 80/20. She decides to go 95/5. She really ups the veggies, goes gluten free, eliminates dairy, etc. He goes down to more like 60/40, but does 16/8 IF and once a month does a 40 hour fast. She loses no weight and looks the same. He loses 2 inches off his waist and everyone says he looks 5 years younger. I’ve been doing IF for over a year and have noticed the same thing. Eating less often (and therefore also eating less over time) seems to have a much greater proportional impact than eating “right” does (again, no one is advocating SAD). I’m beginning to see that doing things like eating more vegetables doesn’t really make much of a difference, except that they act as a place holder that might otherwise be filled by crap that does harm. However, IF seems to have an affirmative effect on health. It’s ironic, but from what I’ve seen, the most effective nutrition/diet composition, is just periodic avoidance of nutrition.

  2. #2
    MightyAl's Avatar
    MightyAl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Quad Cities, IA
    Posts
    508
    I think there are a lot more variables at play here. It is tough to compare results between men and women as they react so diffrently and lose weight in different ways. IF is good for calorie restriction and changing the had habit of eating in between meals. In the short run for weight loss eating better and restricting daily caloric intake are going to be the trump card. In the long run for better health eating as close to 100% primal is going to win.

    I have been IF'ing almost every day 16/8 for the past 2+ years. I like it because it makes it simpler to restrict calories, basically I don't have to stress over it, and my results have been positive with maintaining my weight. A good example is that I have stopped working out for the past 3 months with no ill results. I have stayed the same size and strayed far from primal at times but still IF'ed almost every day.

    I don't think it is avoidance of nutrition but avoidance of calories. People stuff their faces with crap every day but are still malnourished.
    Check out my primal blog: http://primalroar.posterous.com/

  3. #3
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,718
    From personal experience I can tell you that eating garbage (I'm talking, garbage) won't make you a fatty if you IF***. I've been knee deep in ice cream, chips, other snacks, eating too much of other things, eating late at night, etc... doing everything about as wrong as you possibly could, but I always fast straight to 1pm and it's kept me at the same exact weight range (up/down 5-10lbs, which for some is a lot, for me it's nothing to cry about, cut it's usually water weight that I can easily shed) for well over a year.

    Should mention that my shitty eating happens (or happened... but who am I kidding it will happen again) only at night, arguably the worst time for it right? and only because I'm under the influence of the herb. All other times, as in, my two meals of the day, are almost always very much primal and clean. I couldn't imagine going days on end eating junk, so I don't want the above paragraph to be misleading.

    Note, I'm not saying it's healthy, at ALL, and I certainly feel much better when I don't do the above of course, but speaking strictly body composition here....

    So I would agree with dboxing only on the point of "how you look" but I do strongly think that eating better (ie: cleaner and closer to primal, I won't say eating more veg, as others feel stellar on zero carb diets, etc) makes you feel better; I have experienced that time and time again. I go in waves or phases, some weeks I eat shitty and can't seem to get my ass to the kitchen and take care of my nutrition. Other weeks, once I really am feeling like total shit, I get my ass back in gear. I'm currently on that detox stage and feeling pretty fantastic.

    ***: and you're also a 26 year old male that is generally active, not metabolically deranged or otherwise afflicted, and all other disclaimers.

  4. #4
    Chochobo's Avatar
    Chochobo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    453
    i also IF everyday, im 5'11 at 168. i lost 80% of my weight via CW. it was nowhere near 70/30. but the calorie restriction that i was on did "help" me lose the weight. i was doing 1.5k cal everyday. mind u it was based on non-low fat/high carb. like oatmeal and fruits and slimfast.
    "Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we often might win, by fearing to attempt." -- William Shakespeare

    my weight loss story...
    started @400+pounds
    CW: 191lbs 15%BF
    PB: 158lbs 10%BF 33in waist
    UD2(6 weeks): 168lbs 9%BF 31in waist
    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread39123.html

  5. #5
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    10,203
    I have heard you can be less strict with yourself if you IF and still gain many of the same health improvements as just being super strict but not IFing. Maybe even additional health improvements since you get the longevity benefits as well. But I don't think you'll get as many health improvements if your feasts are junk food. Mostly you can relax the carb restriction more if you IF.

    I also think it's not right to compare the weight changes of men vs women in your above scenario as a sign of anything. Try it with two men and see if you see a similar pattern.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    I can squat 180lbs, press 72.5lbs and deadlift 185lbs

  6. #6
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,783
    I IF because it's the only way I know of that keeps my calories in check. I also keep to as strict & clean diet as I can. I really want to defeat the life long handicap of pudginess, so I figure, that I need both. Oh, and vigorous HIIT and heavy lifting. And Ultimate Diet 2.0. And a huge piece of luck. I am of that unfortunate classic pear shape, have a healthy appetite and getting closer to 40 than I like, so losing fat is a hard proposition. I *wish* I knew all I know now when I was 23, or, even better, 16! I don't see the point of being less strict. I am trying to better myself, not to get away with something. I deserve only the best, not a half-shoddy job. Like, if someone else did the eating for me, i would not have approved of them downing cookies!
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  7. #7
    dboxing's Avatar
    dboxing is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by MightyAl View Post
    I think there are a lot more variables at play here. It is tough to compare results between men and women as they react so diffrently and lose weight in different ways. IF is good for calorie restriction and changing the had habit of eating in between meals. In the short run for weight loss eating better and restricting daily caloric intake are going to be the trump card. In the long run for better health eating as close to 100% primal is going to win.

    I have been IF'ing almost every day 16/8 for the past 2+ years. I like it because it makes it simpler to restrict calories, basically I don't have to stress over it, and my results have been positive with maintaining my weight. A good example is that I have stopped working out for the past 3 months with no ill results. I have stayed the same size and strayed far from primal at times but still IF'ed almost every day.

    I don't think it is avoidance of nutrition but avoidance of calories. People stuff their faces with crap every day but are still malnourished.
    Right, this is the type of dialog I’m looking for. You said “In the long run for better health eating as close to 100% primal is going to win.” Maybe, but as I indicated the premise is that no one is going to be 100% Primal all the time, so “close” becomes a relative term. My position is that 60/40-70/30 with IF beats 80/20 or 90/10 without it, and is much more realistic. Besides, no one really knows what a correct Primal diet is, especially with today’s food supply even if we did, we couldn’t recreate it.

  8. #8
    jakey's Avatar
    jakey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,294
    i just think you're not making enough of a distinction between overall health and weight loss. there's no magic to IF per say, beyond restricting your calories. and restricting calories absolutely works - for weight loss. you could lose weight eating twinkies, as one well-known researcher proved.

    health is another story.

  9. #9
    dboxing's Avatar
    dboxing is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by jakey View Post
    i just think you're not making enough of a distinction between overall health and weight loss. there's no magic to IF per say, beyond restricting your calories. and restricting calories absolutely works - for weight loss. you could lose weight eating twinkies, as one well-known researcher proved.

    health is another story.
    No this is not entirely correct. Less calorie restrict does create weight loss, and yes IF does create a caloric deficit. However, having periods of time with no consumption creates benefits that just restricting calories does not. The evidence points to our systems being designed to need periods of not consuming and that constant ingestion/digestion inhibits necessary function.

  10. #10
    cwhitson's Avatar
    cwhitson is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    9
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I think a few here may not understand the Primal Blueprint. Yes, IF can get your weight down on a diet that is not that primal or paleo. However, your body will not learn to burn fat as effectively and will continue to cannibalize your muscles as well if you are eating the wrong things. The difference between a twinkie-eating IF'er and a plant/animal eating IF'er is that the plant/animal eating one can burn fat and lose weight even without exercising since that person's body is a trained fat-burning machine, not going after any calorie it can get its hands on because it doesn't know the difference.

    Now there are exceptions. I know some people who look pretty fit and healthy on entire grain-based diets, eating fast foods from time to time. But I think the underlying effects will be understood later...mainly by the coroner.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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