This long ass article busts a lot of myths, i found It very useful and i wanna share It. Some interesting conclusions:

leangains is based completely on IF, even when bulking. Kinobody even said some bullshit about IF giving you better skin and sex drive. I read the leangains' blog and it seemed interesting, but after reading this i'll just do IF on cuts to help with hunger (IF's only benefit, i'd say)

In the end it's also about your personal experience. I'd have troubles eating my bulking calories in 8 hours only for example.

Also, i forgot to say: the article shed a light on pre/post workout nutrition and caffeine as a pre-workout

>leangains is based completely on IF, even when bulking
Isn't that exactly what I said?

>Low fat
I'd rather have my dick working, but thank you very much.

Low fat is easier to maintain but not more effective than Low carb.

>I'd rather have my dick working
So that you can jerk off to strangers fucking your girlfriend?

OP had a source for his claim. Where is yours?

Yes, but as research in the article says, those hormone levels changed don't seem to affect muscle gain or recovery
You clearly can't read. Research showed a slight decrease in testosterone levels after 3 months or more of low fat diets in professional bodybuilder, so we're talking about people with less than 8% bf and a strict ipocaloric diet. Even in those subject the test change didn't affect performance.

Low fat here meant that when you restrict calories you cut the fats rather than carbs, keeping fats in the 15-20% total calories range

learn to read before posting

"In a study of athletes taking in the same amount of protein (1.6 g/kg) during weight loss, performance decrements and LBM losses were avoided when adequate carbohydrate was maintained and dietary fat was lowered [13]. Mettler, et al. [29] also found that a caloric reduction coming from dietary fat while maintaining adequate carbohydrate intake and increasing protein to 2.3 g/kg maintained performance and almost completely eliminated LBM losses in resistance trained subjects."

While dieting, low carbohydrate diets may degrade performance [32] and lead to lowered insulin and IGF-1 which appear to be more closely correlated to LBM preservation than testosterone [6]. Thus, a lower end fat intake between 15-20% of calories, which has been previously recommended for bodybuilders [5], can be deemed appropriate if higher percentages would reduce carbohydrate or protein below ideal ranges."

I'm yet to read about a population of indigenous people ,not affected by industrial revolution, who ate small quantities of fat. (talking about pre 20th century and processed foods)

It's not about testosterone, erection is androgen dependent but not at the level that Veeky Forums thinks.
People who have ED are more likely to have some problems with pituitary or adrenal gland.

>those hormone levels changed don't seem to affect muscle gain or recovery
You're moving the goalpost. I agree that the evidence that LG brought in favour of the hormonal effect of IF is sketchy at best (eg: the study on the effects of fasting on black women during menopause), but that wasn't what we were talking about, was it?

I need help.
Im trying to achieve ottermode.

Ive started lifting 5weeks ago, ive gain like 8cm in chest size and a lot in arm size (I havent measured them before, but my arms were non existent.)
When I started I had 13% bf, measured with bioimpedancy.

Now i eat ~1500kcal/day, what is about 500-800lower than my TDEE.
Yesterday ive started IF, will this help me to lose remaining belly fat? I lift for 2hours a day + 1 hour HIIT rope jumping

I think i'm getting lost. I completely agree with your previous post: "eating at a surplus is good for bulking, doing IF doesn't affect your ability to gain weight"

which means that as lost as you are at a surplus you can even gorge it down in 1 hour and fast the remaining 23, and i surely agree with it (it's stated more than once in the article i linked)

What i meant is that doing IF protocols doesn't have positive benefits during bulks, so if you want to do IF while bulking it's fine, but keep in mind that the only benefit is your personal meal timing preference, nothing less and nothing more. Is this what you were asking me?

We are first of all talking about short periods, and also as long as you are eating 0.5g/kg of fats (still low fat) you will be fine.

Also, as proven in the article, the test reduction comes mainly from the CALORIE RESTRICTION, not from the fat reduction! Unless you are really fucking lean your body can still use your own fat to produce hormones, but if you are on a restriction it will prefer to keep this fat for energy

First off, bioimpendace is totally inaccurate so that bf% is completely irrelevant. Secondly, you're going to be a skelly if you keep doing what you do

>Is this what you were asking me?
Then it's a misunderstanding. Here () you say
>many people believe it's good for bulking
which kind of imply that it isn't when in reality it doesn't matter that much whether or not you're doing IF since the main factor is food consumption.
In the end we're saying the same thing

czech em

I know, my plan is to lose that belly fat and after that im going to eat surplus calories (50% prot, 25% carbs 25%fats)

(to that bioimpedance, we have been doing research with it and outcomes were pretty accurate. T. one year away from being doctor)

There are many things that seem wrong. First of all if you really are at a 500-800cals below the TDEE you are way beyond the "dangerous" level of cutting (which normally is 15-20%, while yours is like 30%), and if you are doing 2 hours of lifting and 1 hour of cardio a day on top of that your calorie deficit is even bigger.

Also 1 hour of HIIT is just impossible. It's either not 1 hour or not HIIT, by definition HIIT should be at an intensity level that can't be sustained for more than 20-30 minutes.

on your question: IF can help the hunger management, try it out and see if it works for you, but don't think it's magical

tl;dr 1500 calories + 2hours of lifting +1 hour of cardio a day is crazy, either eat more or reduce activity level,

Yeah that was a misunderstanding. Sorry man
Your plan is just way too aggressive, and will probably end up in you burning most of the muscles and being exausthed as fuck.

This is a marathon, not a sprint (mandatory scooby quote)

>2hours of lifting +1 hour of cardio a day is craz
Ive started with this only one week ago, but today im destroyed as fuck, have to take one or two days off of lifting

but i dont understand it. i have a plenty enegry to do it

>we have been doing research with it and outcomes were pretty accurate.
For monitoring body composition changes in homogeneous populations? Yes. For single measurements? Not much

Congrats on your career path but even if you're studying medicine your
>my plan is to lose that belly fat and after that im going to eat surplus calories (50% prot, 25% carbs 25%fats)
kind of gives away you're out of your element here

Did you even read the sticky?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC329619/

So this has been debunked? My intuition from fasting is that being hungry for some period of the day has an effect in itself, and that there's more to it than just eating less in a 24h period.

This article has many things that raise my attention:
1) only 6 subjects, so it's not too trustworthy
2) it's based on 1 to 5 days of fasting
3) the most important one: is not related to exercise in any way.

What this means is that, even if what they found is actually true (fasting for at least 24h raises GH secretion) the overall consequences of fasting may not be good in terms of losing fat and retaining muscle: from what the study tell us we know that the subjects had higher GH levels, but they surely also had high cortisol and catecolamines levels and really low insulin levels, and the total balance of those factors is unknown

tl;dr article wasn't "debunked", it simply only take GH levels into account, and it's not based on bodybuilding/exercise at all, while the thing that makes the researches i linked golden is the fact that they are based on bodybuilding/weightlifting.

Thanks for the read anyway, i appreciate your contribution a lot

>kind of gives away you're out of your element here
true, i fucking hate it

yep, goig to read it again

>true
>true
>true
>debatable

Read the sticky because it's useful information and, as you already know, it's important to understand why you do something.
In short though, your problem is you're trying to do too much too fast. Find a routine you can stick to for a long time and choose a reasonable deficit; in your case I would suggest to eat at maintenance and lift. Do SS or Greyskull (if you choose SS read the fucking book)

So is it true you don't need to count calories on lowcarbmeme as long as you keep your carb intake under X grams?
If I ate this daily would I still be losing weight? How does that even work from a metabolic perspective, would I be shitting fat?

>Common fucking knowledge shit everyone should know from 4 seconds googling
>0 replies

>Fun thread of people enjoying themselves
>Justified amount of replies

End thyself

Your 1 week but now you're fucked should tell you something... Really aggressive approaches like yours of 500 or more deficit PLUS crazy amounts of exercise are only sustainable for a really short period (like a week.........). This is why others have said eat more or exercise less. You will burn out, like you are doing now.
Also HIIT is not done for an hour of skipping, that's cardio. Think you misunderstood the acronym.
You're a doctor or thereabouts, you should know better than drastic short term changes. Take a more reasonable, sustainable approach and you'll get what you want and keep it rather than get your goal and rebound back to where you started.

Up the food, keep 2 hours of exercise and drop the cardio work to about 2 - 3 times a week. Much more realistic and you won't burn out, lose ability to study etc.

Gl

Also thanks op for link, will read tomorrow when it isn't so late. Nice that some threads here are actually decent, not usual jaw line/is he nstty etc

thank you guys, I really appreciated it

what about IF HGH/test/cognitive gains?
is it worth IF during a bulk?

i'd like some studies on this though and not that lean gains bro science

>want high test so I eat a lot of fat
>want to keep LBM as I cut so I cant eat a lot of fat
what the fuck do I do Veeky Forums

>>Low fat diets are the best for losing fat while keeping LBM
yes cause fat has 9 calories to the gram and most people are gluttonous bastards. some hormonal implications too but not relevant here
>>During bulk, 1.2-2g/kg of protein is enough, during cuts the required protein can go up to 2.5-3g/kg, depending on Activity
common knowledge
>>Meal timing doesn't mean shit. IF can be good, but calorie/macro are still 99% of the weight loss
common knowledge
>>BCAAs and creatine really work
common knowledge/peer reviewed studies have been around for ages

still a fun read, thanks for link, but you are not the Veeky Forums lord and savior you may or may not consider yourself now

strange that i did the agressive aproach for 3 months then.

>everyone should know from 4 seconds googling
Should. But doesn't.

you dont need more then 0.7g of protein per pound of LEAN bodyweight ever, even when cutting.

Should i weight lift right after waking up? without eating?

I've read that article twice already. Probably a lot of other Veeky Forumsizens read it as well

Well, they sure held positive benefits, they are not mandatory, obviously

How the fuck can you lose fat on a 5400calorie diet with half a kilo of fat A DAY? lmao

Yet everyday we see questions like You're welcome bro

Read the whole thread, i said it more than once: IF can be done on bulks, it doesn't have positive or negative consequences really, just your personal comfort at following it. 99% of the thing is still calories and macros, meal timing as a very tiny if not inexistent role.

As i said, low carb means more test, while low fat means more energy. It's scientifically proven (in the article i linked in OP) that the effect of test is less important than the one of carbs
tl;dr low fat is better, but don't go below 15-20% of total calories from fat

I just wanna help people that, like me, always felt like there were very little points on which we could all agree. I'm far from being Veeky Forums lord and saviour, i didn't mean to sound like a geedy fag, soz

I'm talking about total body mass

I just thought it was great, i'm glad to know it was already known stuff for some people, but i also wanted to start some sort of conversation. I appreciate funny threads, but some serious thread is nice from time to time

yeah but i asked about the supposed 4x hgh raise and the cognitive perfomances

kek was just banter, you did good, some people are really gonna hear this stuff for the first time. fun read overall, as I said (well as fun as ncbi docs can be).

>Along these lines, Stote et al. [113] found that compared to three meals per day, one meal per day caused slightly more weight and fat loss. Curiously, the one meal per day group also showed a slight gain in lean mass, but this could have been due to the inherent error in BIA for body composition assessment.

Is this article trying to trick me?

Why do people reverse meme IF? Nobody following IF does so under the impression that it burns more calories or makes your lose more fat. Every day I see someone call IF a meme and reply "CICO fag". IF is just about convenience and making a cut easier by allowing yourself and actual meal instead of the equivalent of snacks throughout the day.

>no comment
>eating 200-240gs of protein a day, which is 800-1000 calories on a cut, that is a joke
>obviously
>1. getting robbed by the supplement companies for BCAAs which are abundant in whey protein, okay 2. obviously it does work

If you're an athlete BCAAs are actually useful. Average gym goers can definitely do without

>no comment
the comment is in the article you dumb fuck
>eating 200-240gs of protein a day, which is 800-1000 calories on a cut, that is a joke
I'm curious, you cut at 1000 calories or what? also i said it's based on your activity, the higher end (3g/kg) is for people that do daily strenuous exercise
>obviously
>1. getting robbed by the supplement companies for BCAAs which are abundant in whey protein, okay 2. obviously it does work
I never bought BCAA, i just said that they actually do work, and that creatine is worth buying, while a lot of other common supplements are, as the article says, not really supported by any evidence.

Self-entitled fucks like you really annoy me, not because you are wrong, but because you pretend to teach others what's right

>total body mass.

so your retarded then

bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

The research refer to total body mass, tell them they are retarded lol
This was actually a nice read, appreciated. Tbh 2.5-3g/kg sounded crazy to me. I always went for 1g/lb, but i'll reconsider it