ssh

Figure out what your doing after?

I bet it gets rug burns when you walk.

Unfortunately there isn't any great way to measure, besides progression in workouts, or accurate methods of taking body fat measurements. (trying to differentiate what was from fasting vs working out vs diet would be nearly impossible) So it's just something I either take faith in sort of / try a normal eating window for a few months, and see how I feel / progress, but the latter would be so fucking hard to draw a conclusion. Honestly if I felt bad, discomfort, or anything negative then I would flat out stop doing it. I don't have anything to gain in supporting something I don't believe in. I get the last statement about not eating for a long time, and finally eating, and having some emotional response, but really I don't feel much in that department either. I feel more after doing an intense workout, and then eating. But hiking or the alike isn't intense. In any event, good or bad, it's not for everyone. I'm beating on you now because I want a solid statement of why you are doing this and endorse it. Don't say you don't because you diseminated the information and kind of drink the cool aid. What I am asking, and what Sean is being nice about is the fact that you need to have some way of quantifying the benefit of what you are doing without using studies that you haven't measured on your self. I have done the blood work on myself. I have seen other peoples bloodwork posted. Just say what your goal is and how you know this format helps you acheive it. No one can counter an argument that is set up as such. Saying "it's not for everyone, but it's what works best for me" is like saying "well it sounds louder" when it's 2 db down from the guy next to you. Honestly how would you expect me to accurately measure a difference VS standard eating? Should I get a dexa scan once a week for three months, then compare to regular eating for three months? What about differences in calorie and protein intake, how would I account for that. Even if I attempted to do such thing it would be considered "poorly conducted" even to me. Too many variables in which I couldn't account for, waste of time. The only thing quantifiable are my gains in strength, mass, and no visible fat gain. Once again just something anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt. If I could simply shove some meter up my ass, and it could tell me whether fasting was helping or harming my goals of strength, and lean mass, then I would. You still have not answered my original question from pages back and the first question on my post. What is your goal from this method and why do you believe it will work better with a fasting program than a more traditional format? If you could answer that, then it is really easy to start measuring results and finding out what works better. The too many variables argument is tired and old. Yes a CRX will peak differently than an explorer. But not enough to make a funky pup with 150 wants tuned within a nano HZ louder than a pair of 18" icons on 3k in a big box that is within standard deviation of perfect. So again, what is your goal and why do feel your approach is more viable than the more accepted rout? I already listed some benefits, but primarily an increase in protein synthesis, and better adaption to fat burning. My goals are increasing strength and mass while putting on minimal fat. So I'm banking on the increased protein synthesis to help with strength and mass, and that burning more fat for fuel instead of solely carbs can help reduce the fat gain. How I would measure those differences separately from all the other variables that come into play that I have no fucking clue. I'm not using it as an excuse. I simply don't know how the fuck you would differentiate it from everything else that comes into play. Your analogy of comparing what's happening in the body to how loud stereo is isn't very fair. It's easy to throw some db meter in the car, and record the results. It's not a fair analogy but it's accurate in principal. One of our hypothesis is correct. And not by a small margin. I guess I'm not getting my point across. I'm asking why you believe not what you believe. We have established that "hard science supports both claims". And as for the goals unless you have specific ones you are right, its not possible to measure. But if you say I want to make x weight at x body fat we can see which method is faster at results. Then the reason why matters less. I'll drop it because there is no way to measure something when you have no yardstick. I just don't think it would be accurate. I could try meeting one goal for a while with one diet, then try the next goal for with fasting, but it wouldn't be fair or accurate. ie: goal of 1rm 80lb chinup. Currently I can do 60. Well lets say it takes xxx to get from 60 to 80, so to test it with fasting, I would have to do 80 to 100? Would comparing going from 60 to 80 be the same as going from 80 to 100? That I'm not really sure.......

Your right, it probably isn't the best idea, but it's something I'm compromising with until I find a better means.

Unfortunately there isn't any great way to measure, besides progression in workouts, or accurate methods of taking body fat measurements. (trying to differentiate what was from fasting vs working out vs diet would be nearly impossible) So it's just something I either take faith in sort of / try a normal eating window for a few months, and see how I feel / progress, but the latter would be so fucking hard to draw a conclusion. Honestly if I felt bad, discomfort, or anything negative then I would flat out stop doing it. I don't have anything to gain in supporting something I don't believe in. I get the last statement about not eating for a long time, and finally eating, and having some emotional response, but really I don't feel much in that department either. I feel more after doing an intense workout, and then eating. But hiking or the alike isn't intense. In any event, good or bad, it's not for everyone. I'm beating on you now because I want a solid statement of why you are doing this and endorse it. Don't say you don't because you diseminated the information and kind of drink the cool aid. What I am asking, and what Sean is being nice about is the fact that you need to have some way of quantifying the benefit of what you are doing without using studies that you haven't measured on your self. I have done the blood work on myself. I have seen other peoples bloodwork posted. Just say what your goal is and how you know this format helps you acheive it. No one can counter an argument that is set up as such. Saying "it's not for everyone, but it's what works best for me" is like saying "well it sounds louder" when it's 2 db down from the guy next to you. Honestly how would you expect me to accurately measure a difference VS standard eating? Should I get a dexa scan once a week for three months, then compare to regular eating for three months? What about differences in calorie and protein intake, how would I account for that. Even if I attempted to do such thing it would be considered "poorly conducted" even to me. Too many variables in which I couldn't account for, waste of time. The only thing quantifiable are my gains in strength, mass, and no visible fat gain. Once again just something anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt. If I could simply shove some meter up my ass, and it could tell me whether fasting was helping or harming my goals of strength, and lean mass, then I would. You still have not answered my original question from pages back and the first question on my post. What is your goal from this method and why do you believe it will work better with a fasting program than a more traditional format? If you could answer that, then it is really easy to start measuring results and finding out what works better. The too many variables argument is tired and old. Yes a CRX will peak differently than an explorer. But not enough to make a funky pup with 150 wants tuned within a nano HZ louder than a pair of 18" icons on 3k in a big box that is within standard deviation of perfect. So again, what is your goal and why do feel your approach is more viable than the more accepted rout? I already listed some benefits, but primarily an increase in protein synthesis, and better adaption to fat burning. My goals are increasing strength and mass while putting on minimal fat. So I'm banking on the increased protein synthesis to help with strength and mass, and that burning more fat for fuel instead of solely carbs can help reduce the fat gain. How I would measure those differences separately from all the other variables that come into play that I have no fucking clue. I'm not using it as an excuse. I simply don't know how the fuck you would differentiate it from everything else that comes into play. Your analogy of comparing what's happening in the body to how loud stereo is isn't very fair. It's easy to throw some db meter in the car, and record the results.

I'm curious what's your calorie intake for maintenance, and gaining mass Matt?

Right now I'm sitting at 3800kcal and 130g protein. Lets see how much more I get to.

I will say one thing I didn't like about fasting was having a shorter window for getting enough kcals in. But then I started drinking milk, and now it's a cake walk. I think I have my milk issue under control too so I should be golden for meeting my kcals daily. If for some reason milk does become an issue, and I find myself not able to get all the kcals in my eating window, then I'll definitely switch to standard eating since the "benefits" of fasting don't out-weight the negatives of not eating enough and trying to gain mass.

I understand your trying to help, but I'm just not buying it. You can call me a jackass too.

Unfortunately there isn't any great way to measure, besides progression in workouts, or accurate methods of taking body fat measurements. (trying to differentiate what was from fasting vs working out vs diet would be nearly impossible) So it's just something I either take faith in sort of / try a normal eating window for a few months, and see how I feel / progress, but the latter would be so fucking hard to draw a conclusion. Honestly if I felt bad, discomfort, or anything negative then I would flat out stop doing it. I don't have anything to gain in supporting something I don't believe in. I get the last statement about not eating for a long time, and finally eating, and having some emotional response, but really I don't feel much in that department either. I feel more after doing an intense workout, and then eating. But hiking or the alike isn't intense. In any event, good or bad, it's not for everyone. I'm beating on you now because I want a solid statement of why you are doing this and endorse it. Don't say you don't because you diseminated the information and kind of drink the cool aid. What I am asking, and what Sean is being nice about is the fact that you need to have some way of quantifying the benefit of what you are doing without using studies that you haven't measured on your self. I have done the blood work on myself. I have seen other peoples bloodwork posted. Just say what your goal is and how you know this format helps you acheive it. No one can counter an argument that is set up as such. Saying "it's not for everyone, but it's what works best for me" is like saying "well it sounds louder" when it's 2 db down from the guy next to you. Honestly how would you expect me to accurately measure a difference VS standard eating? Should I get a dexa scan once a week for three months, then compare to regular eating for three months? What about differences in calorie and protein intake, how would I account for that. Even if I attempted to do such thing it would be considered "poorly conducted" even to me. Too many variables in which I couldn't account for, waste of time. The only thing quantifiable are my gains in strength, mass, and no visible fat gain. Once again just something anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt. If I could simply shove some meter up my ass, and it could tell me whether fasting was helping or harming my goals of strength, and lean mass, then I would.

Unfortunately there isn't any great way to measure, besides progression in workouts, or accurate methods of taking body fat measurements. (trying to differentiate what was from fasting vs working out vs diet would be nearly impossible) So it's just something I either take faith in sort of / try a normal eating window for a few months, and see how I feel / progress, but the latter would be so fucking hard to draw a conclusion. Honestly if I felt bad, discomfort, or anything negative then I would flat out stop doing it. I don't have anything to gain in supporting something I don't believe in. I get the last statement about not eating for a long time, and finally eating, and having some emotional response, but really I don't feel much in that department either. I feel more after doing an intense workout, and then eating. But hiking or the alike isn't intense. In any event, good or bad, it's not for everyone.

If you fast to cleanse and start fresh it's understandable, if not it's definitely damaging. How is it damaging? Of course fasting is relative to how long you fast for, but lets say 16 hours is "fasting." How is it damaging? Don't tell me some tangent either. Literally unnecessary cortisol. I will give you that. An increase in cortisol, but I'm not going to worry about that since there are multitudes of other factors that can elevate it, and I don't see anything that shows fasting as elevating it to some detrimental point.

If you fast to cleanse and start fresh it's understandable, if not it's definitely damaging. How is it damaging? Of course fasting is relative to how long you fast for, but lets say 16 hours is "fasting." How is it damaging? Don't tell me some tangent either. Makes me feel like absolute shit, saps energy, kills my concentration, and generally is a body fuck. Lasts for days as well. Okay that's understandable reasoning, but personally for me it's almost the exact opposite, and that's also why I enjoy it-not having to eat like clockwork. ie: the other day I went on 3 hour hike in 100degree weather. (drinking water of course). Got back to my friends house around 6. Went and watched a movie at the theater, and finally got home around 9:30 and finally ate some food. It definitely turned out to be a longer then general fast for me, but the entire time I never felt real hungry, tired, or sick. Sure I had an occasional empty stomach feeling, but nothing that wouldn't go away after twenty seconds. Either way this is just anecdotal.

If you fast to cleanse and start fresh it's understandable, if not it's definitely damaging. How is it damaging? Of course fasting is relative to how long you fast for, but lets say 16 hours is "fasting." How is it damaging? Don't tell me some tangent either.

Doesn't matter what it's related to. A study that doesn't lead to a theorem isn't finished and therefore in accurate. It is way to easy in biological science to prove what you want. No matter what you find, you will find something with as much credibility that says exactly the opposite. Pretty much one of the most disgusting industries there is. Of course they get to prey on the mildly or uninformed and everyone has health issues so the potential customer list is huge. It's pretty akin to the internet. You can surely learn something, but if you aren't smart enough to skim the BS then what you learn will be crap. I am definitely not implying that you aren't smart enough, but just voicing my general distaste for everything akin to the book you are defending. As for my don't read it comment. I'd say the same about SMD, Crapaudio etc. At the same time if you find it amusing, carry on. Just don't expect what you are learning to be so much a learning experience. If you want one of those, start to read about how different cultures diet. Much more interesting and IMO easier to apply to your own person to extend your life and make you happier in the process. I understand what you are saying, but in this case I just happen to believe SMD is legit. I'd like to have a real understanding on how the body processes nutrients, and other functions. Then hopefully I'll be more equipped to read research and separate the bullshit from the truth. Since I've taken a keen interest in the whole realm I find it enjoyable, not cumbersome.

I think it's a good idea to try and get your protein from food, but if your lacking some amount then supplementation is definitely awesome. I also like mixing some protein and bcaa before a workout.

One thing I should also point out is that I never claimed any of it to be some end-all way of eating, or that you must do it. I fast, and I eat whole foods after 1pm on T,Th,F,Sat,Sun. M and W I don't eat til 4:30pm due to classes. I don't eat three big meals, as I wouldn't be able to get enough food in. So from 1-10 or 430-10 I eat until I meet my goals for kcal and protein. I'm not exactly ketogenic either considering a gallon of milk has approx 200grams of carbs. I'd much rather meet my kcals and protein then sell myself short, and in my case I don't have to worry much about trying to lose body fat (atm).

What do you feel is the benefit of the fasting technique? increase in GH levels increase in protein synthesis increase in protein-3 levels in muscle increase in lipolysis for fat burning increased insulin sensitivity improved autophagy increase in bdnf levels Just some stuff off the top of my head.

....I'll assume that this wasn't a slight to me, but it sounds nearly 100% directed to me. When you say put it to the test you mean? I spent 2 years taking my blood after meals to find out insulin response. Adjusting to see what would yield results for my desired goals. Weekly blood tests to measure GH levels for quite some time, then monthly. I had to be checked for what they thought was cancer, so I had them do endocrine and IGF levels. It ended up free for me so why not?What I found to be true with me in blood work was true in real world application. If you don't try the most basic principal of eating many clean meals a day of balanced food then you simply do not know how it works for you. I'm not saying you should be a sheep and do as everyone else does. What I am saying is there isn't a magic bullet. The wizard of oz is just a midget behind a curtain yelling really loud. What works is grinding regular healthy meals and lots of time in the gym. Then tweak from there to best suit your needs. Sean has more fun with his method and eats a wild variety. I find that tough, so I eat 6 boiled chicken breasts a day with vegis and oatmeal or barley.Being married and working more than I have hours in a day has made me lazy. Also depression makes me fall off the horse and struggle. But any problems I have or anyone I have trained with can tell you it's only lack of dedication that makes the results sloppy. I could see where my last statement may have made you thought I was talking about you, but I wasn't. Just saying that just because someone has done the same thing for a long time doesn't always make them an "authority" on the subject to me.

Obviously both of us agree that whole foods are important. On a side branch, I also practice fasting which is entirely different then diet, and you guys find that to be negative. That's fine with me.

I was referring to Sean, not you Matt. It wasn't a red herring considering he simply said not to read the book, and he didn't know what the book was. It isn't related to fasting, just paleo diets.

It's a tat day.