Sports scientists at the University of Illinois at Chicago may have stumbled on a perfect way for overweight people to lose weight. Their study suggests that a combination of intermittent fasting and cardio training results in considerable weight loss while maintaining lean body mass. Intermittent fasting The publication of the scientists' study, a few months ago in Obesity, is a triumph for the intermittent fasting movement. They argue that the human body is capable of functioning perfectly well for hours without taking in food. When this happens it starts burning body fat, and holding on to muscle tissue. Respected scientists and traditional trainers advise athletes who want to lose weight to concentrate on eating small quantities of food during the day. This is believed to keep the body's energy-burning topped up and to prevent the breakdown of muscle mass. This is exactly the opposite advice from what the supporters of intermittent fasting recommend. Study Surabhi Bhutani's publication in Obesity backs up the intermittent fasters. Bhutani did an experiment with 64 obese but healthy people, with an average BMI of 35. Her experiment lasted 12 weeks. Bhutani divided her subjects into four groups of 16 test subjects in each. The first group did nothing at all during the experiment and functioned as the control group. The second group did a kind of intermittent fasting, eating only a quarter of the amount of calories they normally would on alternate days [Alternate day fasting]. On those days the subjects consumed one meal - of 450 kcal - that consisted of 22-26 percent protein in energy terms. The third group did cardio training on stationary bikes and cross trainers three times a week [Exercise]. At the start of the study the subjects exercised for 25 minutes at 60 percent of their maximal heart rate; by week 12 they'd increased that to 40 minutes at 75 percent of their maximal heart rate. The fourth group did both exercise and intermittent fasting [Combination]. The subjects trained on the days that they ate just one meal. Results The figures below show that the combined approach worked unexpectedly well. The subjects in the combination group lost twice as much weight as the subjects who only fasted, but they lost hardly any lean body mass. What's more, the combination of intermittent fasting and cardio improved the subjects' cholesterol levels more than the other approaches. Conclusion "The combination of alternate-day fasting plus exercise may be implemented as a viable lifestyle intervention to help obese individuals lose weight, retain lean mass, and lower their risk of coronary heart disease", the researchers conclude. Source: Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013 Jul;21(7):1370-9.
Based on the body mass index they were quite overweight (?) Hmmmn. I spoke with tons of friends who don't exercise. If they can get laid on regular basis & feel secure/confident enough in their own defensive skills, they basically don't see any point in exercising. And as for health, people in general take good health for granted, as if it will last forever. I think, it's not about how to make the ,,fat ones'' to exercise, but about (this is where it gets interesting), what would be the key patterns among those who exercise on regular basis (without being pro), for decades. This breaking point where it becomes of someones identity, like ,, This is who i am '' Maybe it boils down to a simple addiction to dopamine/endorphins. Maybe narcissism to show off. Dunno. 15 years natty. 50~ more to go. ,,If i miss my exercising for more than 3 days - i become depressed'' Jean-Claude Van Damme
Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, the scientists in the study didn't use intermittent fasting. OK so that was alternate day fasting, not IF. IF means that you still eat the same calories than normally would but in a much smaller timeframe, like 6 to 10 hours. Usually skipping breakfast or dinner is the easier way to do it, personally I think skipping breakfast is easiest, but YMMV. So you eat let's say between 11 am and 7 pm your 2-3 normal meals, but nothing between 7 pm and next day 11 am. That is IF. Sure if calories are cut then the diet is even more successful, but that is not the point of IF. "The 16/8 method involves fasting every day for 14–16 hours and restricting your daily eating window to 8–10 hours. Within the eating window, you can fit in two, three, or more meals. This method is also known as the Leangains protocol and was popularized by fitness expert Martin Berkhan."
I disagree with you about the definition of intermittent fasting. The 18/6 schedule you mention is only one form of intermittent fasting. Other schedules under the intermittent fasting umbrella are for example the "one meal a day (OMAD)" schedule, which implies that you fast 24 hours in between meals. Yet another form has a fasting period of 36 hours, followed by an 8 hours eating window. And so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting
Sure we can disagree about the LENGTH of the interval, but even by your definition the study didn't use IF. They dropped calories by 75% on every other day. That is not fasting, that is lowered calorie intake. " eating only a quarter of the amount of calories they normally would on alternate days " Kind of funny when scientist don't even know (or the journalist) what they are writing about. The whole point of IF (or fasting in general) is that the during a certain period the body changes its mechanism and start to burn calories from its fat depository. The trick with IF is that you don't eat LESS or different food, you just eat it a different way, assuming normal calorie intake and not excess of it.
Also here I disagree with you. The terminology "intermittent fasting" doesn't say anything at all about how much you eat when you do eat.
Disagreeing is good, knowing the meaning of the word is better. Fasting itself means, well, look it up. (and yes, you are right if you take the fasting: eating very little meaning, but that is not how most people use it. How do I know? Wiki: Fasting is the willful refrainment from eating and drinking.) Breakfast literally means breaking the fast, thus eating something. Yes, fasting every other day is still intermittent fasting, but again, that is not what the people in the study did. My understanding of IF is that the best result can come from reaching autophagy. Wow, another even stranger word than fasting so I am going to stop now. https://old.reddit.com/r/intermittentfasting/wiki/index
Maybe their use of the term IF is unconventional in the study compared to what the traditional definitions are, but I can tell you right now that working out for 25 - 40 minutes and then only having a single 450 calorie meal the entire day will definitely have you wanting to eat your arm off by the end of that evening. So whether you want to call it Intermittent Fasting or Intermittent Calorie Restriction, the premise is pretty much the same: Energy expenditure + one small meal for the day = weight loss. And I'm pretty sure that the point of the one small meal was simply to provide the body with enough protein and carbs to prevent muscle wasting from the completed workout routine.
OK, I missed this part of the OP: "On those days the subjects consumed one meal - of 450 kcal " So yes, they fasted 23 hours or so every other day. Had they eaten 2-3 very small meals, that would have been not fasting. They had plenty of autophagy. -------------------------------- Obviously throwing in exercise increased the result. The interesting part is the results between the 2 groups; exercise only and fasting only. The fasting group got better results. Loss of fat mass was double than in the exercise group, everything else was equal. This was kind of expected if one believes in the saying: (the great bodies is loosely meant here) "Great Bodies Are Made in the Kitchen, Not the Gym"