Has anyone ever heard of Brad Pilon? He recently released an E-book called "Eat-Stop-Eat", which basically sums it up. He says that all of the weight loss info out there such as "eat every 3 hours", "eat more protein" and "fasting lowers your metabolism" is nonsense; that food intake has almost no effect on metabolism and as long as you are doing resistance exercises, there will be no muscle wasting by intermittant (2 days per week) fasting (24 hours at a time). In fact, he says that research shows that fasting is actually good for you.

I'm really curious what the people on the weight training forum think about this! I posted a similar question that is now under "does it work?"....

I've never fasted and worked out but I do know how it feel when I don't eat enough food, like CRAP! I usually workout 6 days a week, I can't imagine doing any of my days without food ! I'm ready to pass out if I miss one of my 3 hour meals. I know this probably won't help but I don't suggest this for anyone.

No - I appreciate all input! What this guy suggests is that you eat right before and after starting the 24 hour fast - so you'd eat dinner at 5:00, then fast, then eat dinner again the next day.

But that's a lot less than every 3 hours and yes, I can see how you'd feel terrible on workout days.

Yuck. I don't want to fast two days a week. I don't quite see why anyone would want to, not when there's lovely healthy food around to eat. I especially don't want to fast while I'm trying to exercise. I'd probably kill somebody if I hadn't eaten for 12 hours and had worked out and still wasn't able to have a meal. Not good.

Well - to clarify, I think the theory is that then on the other days of the week, you don't have to be careful as far as what you are eating - or how much, etc. That way you can lose fat (according to this guy you lose fat at a much faster rate when you near the end of a 24 hour fast) and still eat like a "normal" person on the other 5 days.

Hmm, I think it's a good way to lose muscle. Your body needs protein 24/7 in order to survive because protein is the building blocks of the body. You know when they talk about "essential" amino acids in protein? They're essential in order to live.

When you aren't taking in protein, your body is forced to seek it out from internal sources. Protein in your body is stored in muscle, including your heart muscle. Your body has to break it down to meet its daily requirements. And that means you're digesting your muscles and organs. Not good.

I haven't read the book, but honestly, it sounds like another gimmick to me. Personally, I wouldn't ever dream of fasting.

Thanks, Meg! I was hoping you'd "weigh in" on this!

I'd like to see his scientific studies. I agree with Meg- it's a good way to lose muscle and not have the stamina even the next day when you are eating to do much.

As for losing fat towards the end of the fasting period...again, I'd really like to see the scientific evidence for that. Most bodies are much more efficient at pulling immediate fuel from muscle protein in that state from the studies that I've seen.

I've done 12 weeks of a diet that called for a gradual carb depletion throughout the week and then a total depletion workout before eating carbs again. Those were some of the least effective but most miserable workouts I've ever done. 10 pushups in that condition had me lying face down on the floor unable to move--I can normally crank out 45-50. I didn't lose any more fat on that regime than I do eating 5 CLEAN meals a day and working out. I was making up the calories in protein and fats- if just lowering carbs to miniscule levels did that to me, I'm sure not going to try NO food! The only time I'll do that is before a medical procedure, and believe me, the not eating was the worst part.



Mel

I always want to know about the research, so I googled him and what he's saying.

He cites a lot of research it seems, but I started to question whether the research was really directly related to the important issues we're discussing. For example, he talks about energy expenditure and mentions that research indicates that eating a number of small meals doesn't rev the metabolism any more than fewer bigger ones.

Now, I have no idea if what he's saying is true, but Meg brings up a great point about OTHER reasons not to fast! So, even if he's spot on about metabolism, it doesn't mean fasting is therefore a good idea.

I also wonder about his credentials and would just note for the record that e-books can be self-published and no one (publisher) vets the content...

Thank you all for your comments - I really appreciate them. I was thinking of trying it because I've hit a plateau, but I'm going to try doing more cardio and (ugh) tracking everything I eat before I go that route. Thanks again!

I used to work out 3 times a day (30 minutes a pop; weights in the morning and cardio for the rest) and I went on a 5-day fast (yes, that's way too long with all the working out, but I got a good sense of my limitations, which was what I was going for). I always keep track of the calories I burn in the gym, and during that fast, it was interesting to watch the numbers drop day by day. Actually, I can look it up (calories burned lifting weights isn't included in the totals; just cardio):
day 1: 960 cal
day 2: 700 cal
day 3: 570 cal
day 4: 440 cal
day 5: 190 cal, and on the 5th day, I skipped workout #3 'cuz I felt too weak.

I basically lost about 10 pounds that week (much of it water weight) and gained that back, plus more in the days that followed.

Now, I'll do a one or two-day fast maybe once a month or so. If you do start checking out fasting, start slowly (I wouldn't go straight to the whole fasting 2 days a week thing; that's pretty harsh), and really take it easy on the work-outs. I don't recommend lifting weights if you haven't had any protein; it's not a good feeling. They do have protein powders you could get, but I haven't tried them. I doubt some light cardio to keep active would do much harm.

Fasting is really a personal decision, whether it's for weight-loss, spiritual, cleansing, or other reasons. There are ways to incorporate fasting into a healthy lifestyle, but it's not for everyone.

Does he give any insight as to how he thinks a normal person eats. I know that if I eat the way normal people eat, those who choose not to eat a clean diet on a mostly consistent basis, I'm going to gain weight. Plain and simple. But really, I don't think I eat abnormally. I eat healthfully. Another thing I know for certain about myself is that if I eat too low in calories on any given day I always fight a binge the next day. But everyone is different and tweaking different plans to create a healthy one that works for you is important too. I doubt there is a gold standard one size fits all way of eating, but I like to think that mine comes close.

"Intermittent fasting" is all the rage in some fitness circles. It's often associated with the paleo[lithic] diet, i.e., eat like a caveman. (Or woman, but this is definitely a "men's" diet fad.) Eat raw veggies, raw fruits, and a lot of meat. Don't eat grains -- these are an invention of agricultural societies, not hunter/gatherer societies -- or dairy, although there's some disagreement about this among the followers of the diet.

The fasting comes in because our hunter-gatherer ancestors went through periods of feast and famine. Kill a mammoth and eat like a saber-toothed tiger (horse doesn't seem right in this context) for a week, then don't eat much until the next mammoth comes along.

There's a whole evolutionary theoretical apparatus surrounding the diet that, frankly, I find unconvincing from a logical standpoint. (Hello! We don't live in an ice age. What was sufficient for survival in an ice age -- not even necessarily optimal, because evolution doesn't work like that -- may not be optimal now.)

OTOH, at least the paleo diet / IF crowd emphasizes whole foods and a lot of fruits and veggies. IMO that's a heckuva lot better than diets that rely on ultra-processed, chemically enhanced fake food or a majic pill. And if it works for you, well, more power to you.

I am always skeptical of the "caveman hypotheses". It seems people pick and choose to make the argument they want.

For example, even if the cavemen did eat that way, does that mean we want to emulate it? Didn't they not live long lives, and suffer from tooth decay, and etc etc etc?

Actually, if they lived long enough, the skeletal remains of older hunters and gatherers during the paleolithic indicated that they were healthier than their descendants 5-6 thousand years later (in North America) who lived in larger, non-migratory villages based on a farming economy to supplement the hunting and gathering. It isn't until the widespread dependence on agriculture that the forensic archaeological record starts to show nutritional diseases as well as dental anomalies. However, lifespan and the size of the study populations both increase through time.

The whole paleo diet mystifies me, although I tend to eat that way sometimes just because I eat a lot of lean protein and vegies. These same people usually have no problem with creatine, supplements, medical care...certainly none of which was available during the paleolithic period unless you consider leaf mold an antibiotic.

Mel (who is a whiz bang at identifying nutritional distress in skeletal populations ) haha, of course they are distressed if they are skeletal! sorry....