>IIFYM drones need to kill themselves

Effects of eight weeks of time-restricted feeding (16/8) on basal metabolism, maximal strength, body composition, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk factors in resistance-trained males
>Results
After 8 weeks, the 2 Way ANOVA (Time * Diet interaction) showed a decrease in fat mass in TRF compared to ND (p = 0.0448), while fat-free mass, muscle area of the arm and thigh, and maximal strength were maintained in both groups. Testosterone and insulin-like growth factor 1 decreased significantly in TRF, with no changes in ND (p = 0.0476; p = 0.0397). Adiponectin increased (p = 0.0000) in TRF while total leptin decreased (p = 0.0001), although not when adjusted for fat mass. Triiodothyronine decreased in TRF, but no significant changes were detected in thyroid-stimulating hormone, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, or triglycerides. Resting energy expenditure was unchanged, but a significant decrease in respiratory ratio was observed in the TRF group.
>Testosterone and insulin-like growth factor 1 decreased significantly in TRF, with no changes in ND (p = 0.0476; p = 0.0397)
>Triiodothyronine decreased in TRF
fuckin lol, enjoy being hypothyroid and having low test

>there is absolutely no magic to IF, calories-in calories-out still applies

The video shows that IF keeps your metabolic rate higher than simple calorie restriction. Therefore if you ate the same calories on both diets, you'd lose more weight on the IF

the video is irrelevant, show me a peer reviewed study like this user did or get the fuck out of here

maybe if you were disciplined enough to do a flexible/IIFYM dieting protocol without pigging out everyday you could lose weight on a normal diet instead of memeing yourself with 2 hour feeding windows

fag

so is this study saying IF lowers test?
what about low carb ?

i'm doing IF + low carb to try to cut hard but don't want test to lower. should i just start eating breakfast and bread again and just just count calories?

yea, you should. IF + low carb is a double whammy on test metabolism
anabolicmen.com/carbohydrates-testosterone/

You forgot this bit buddy

"After 8 weeks, the 2 Way ANOVA (Time * Diet interaction) showed a decrease in fat mass in TRF [time restricted feed or intermittent fasting] compared to ND [normal diet] (p = 0.0448), while fat-free mass, muscle area of the arm and thigh, and maximal strength were maintained in both groups

>quote a study that shows IF caused lower fat and retained lean mass
>y-yeah but these numbers I don't understand prove its bad

kys moron

Doesn't test drop in someone who's on a cut anyway?
And Triiodothyronine decreasing is good, because it means that blood pressure is down and the heart rate is slower.
Igf1 being lowered in people who aren't adolescents or preggers women is good as well.
That means a far lowered chance of cancer.
Test being lowered...that fucking sucks. It really really does. But one of the reasons that old people who've just WRECKED their bodies are going vegan is because it lowers test production. And test is a potent as fuck hormone.

Most people who follow the IF protocol of eating only want to lose weight and get healthier(to a lesser extent).
It goes counter to everything we want when it comes to building mass, but it also doesn't hurt the maintenance of or stop us from building muscle mass either.
It seems to slow it down. BUT if we are trying to lose weight then a body that is less willing to put on fat mass and eats into fat mass seems to be superior. Wouldn't you agree?

So bulk on 6 meals of IIFYM a day (so 6 big macs)

Cut on Keto+IF

got it

totally not got an eating disorder btw

did you read the study? the TRF group was not calorie restricted.
>Triiodothyronine decreasing is good
wat

Lower body fat + same lean mass = exactly what someone cutting wants, no?

This is a dietary redpill. Search your hearts. You know it to be true.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/

In 1965, Benoit et al. published the first systematic study of the effect of a very-low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diet on composition of weight loss [21]. They observed that when a 1,000-kcal ketogenic diet (10 g of carbohydrates/day) was fed for 10 days, their seven male subjects lost an average of 600 g/day, of which 97% was fat. Young et al. compared 3 isoenergetic (1,800 kcal/day) and isoprotein (115 g/day) diets differing in carbohydrate content (30, 60, and 104 g/day) [22]. After 9 weeks on the 30-g, 60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8, and 11.9 kilograms and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. More recently, Volek et al. examined the effects of 6-week very-low-carbohydrate diet on total and regional body composition [23]. Interestingly, their results indicated that fat mass was significantly decreased (-3.4 kg) and lean body mass significantly increased (+1.1 kg) at week 6. As expected, a very-low-carbohydrate diet led to significant decrease in serum insulin concentrations and there was a significant correlation between the decrease in insulin and the decrease in body fat, indicating that adipose tissue mobilization was up-regulated, which was also supported by the elevated beta-hydroxybutyrate concentrations. Finally, Willy et al. examined the efficacy and metabolic impact of a ketogenic diet in the treatment of morbidly obese adolescents [24]. The authors concluded that ketogenic diet is "a safe and effective weight loss regimen... The weight loss with this approach is rapid, consistent, and almost exclusively from body fat stores." It is frequently claimed that additional weight loss with low-carbohydrate diets is entirely explained by dehydration. However, the classic study by Rabast et al. demonstrated that alterations in the water and electrolyte balance...

fucking lmao

and low fat kills EVEN MORE test.

High protein, high fat, low carb.

Go.

...

It actually increased blood pressure if what I read in wiki is correct. What would happen if Trii was drops?

Oh and the body reacts differently when it hasn't had much to eat in a while. It's wierd but there it is.

This also kind of means that the study is actually fucking useless when talking about the type of IF people around here do.

Do you have a study on people who are cutting while doing IF?

nope
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1387870
Serum concentrations of androgens, cortisol, androgen binding proteins, pituitary hormones, together with anthropometric variables and sports performance were studied in two different elite male ice hockey teams. One of the teams (DIF, n = 22) participated in a special dietary program including reduction in fat from approximately 40 per cent of total energy intake (E%) to less than 30 E% and an increase in carbohydrate intake from 45 E% to about 55 E%, while the other (SSK, n = 21) served as a control group and had no special dietary program. The study covered a 7-month period. Basal values of serum testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), non-SHBG-bound testosterone (NST), cortisol, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHAS) and LH did not differ between the two teams. Serum concentrations of testosterone, SHBG, NST and cortisol increased significantly during the study period in the DIF group and were, with the exception of SHBG, significantly higher than in the SSK group at the end of the study (33.0 vs 26.8 nmol/l, p less than 0.05; 22.5 vs 18.3 nmol/l, p less than 0.05; and 548 vs 464 nmol/l, p less than 0.01).

>two different elite male ice hockey teams
Men on heavy amounts of steroids?

This study is useless as fuck.

>autists arguing concentrations of XZY hormone in the blood whose interactions are still not fully understood
>meanwhile I lose fat and gain muscle mass

you too

Both diets caused lower body fat and retained lean mass. One caused testosterone levels to plummet.

Why does this matter if I want to lose fat while retaining lean muscle mass?