Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"A new study suggests intermittent-fasting causes a loss of muscle mass."
The diet "focuses more on when people eat rather than how much they eat. The diet includes periods of fasting or restricted calories. One of the most popular types is the is the 16:8 method in which people only eat during an eight-hour window and fast during the remaining 16 hours of the day."
"But a new randomized clinical trial on the 16-8 intermittent fasting approach raises questions about it's safety and effectiveness. The researchers were surprised to find that weight loss was moderate, at best, and was accompanied by a larger than expected loss of lean mass, which includes muscles.
"Participants....only lost an average of 2 to 3.5 pounds, just slightly more than the control group. They also didn't display any significant improvements in fat mass, fasting insulin, blood sugar or blood lipids."
Last edited by LongevitySeeker; 01-22-2022 at 10:12 AM..
"A new study suggests intermittent-fasting causes a loss of muscle mass."
The diet "focuses more on when people eat rather than how much they eat. The diet includes periods of fasting or restricted calories. One of the most popular types is the is the 16:8 method in which people only eat during an eight-hour window and fast during the remaining 16 hours of the day."
"But a new randomized clinical trial on the 16-8 intermittent fasting approach raises questions about it's safety and effectiveness. The researchers were surprised to find that weight loss was moderate, at best, and was accompanied by a larger than expected loss of lean mass, which includes muscles.
"Participants who engaged in intermittent fasting only lost an average of 2 to 3.5 pounds, just slightly more than the control group. They also didn't display any significant improvements in fat mass, fasting insulin, blood sugar, or blood lipids."
"The researchers biggest concern was the amount of lean mass lost. Participants in the fasting groups lost 65% of their lean mass instead of the 20% to 30% normally expected with weight loss."
"A new study suggests intermittent-fasting causes a loss of muscle mass."
The diet "focuses more on when people eat rather than how much they eat. The diet includes periods of fasting or restricted calories. One of the most popular types is the is the 16:8 method in which people only eat during an eight-hour window and fast during the remaining 16 hours of the day."
"But a new randomized clinical trial on the 16-8 intermittent fasting approach raises questions about it's safety and effectiveness. The researchers were surprised to find that weight loss was moderate, at best, and was accompanied by a larger than expected loss of lean mass, which includes muscles.
"Participants....only lost an average of 2 to 3.5 pounds, just slightly more than the control group. They also didn't display any significant improvements in fat mass, fasting insulin, blood sugar or blood lipids."
It's the individual IFers choice or ignorance.
They ran a caloric deficit.
Protein intake?
I've never lost muscle at all.
16:8 or 18:6 is nothing ... I've done a lot more and longer.
16:8 or 18:6 is nothing ... I've done a lot more and longer.
It seems it may depend on what the goal is. If a person's goal is to lose weight, which is usually the case, then it's likely they "ran a caloric deficit." It seems the people who took part in the study were primarily interested in weight loss.
Weight loss, achieved through a calorie reduced diet, reduces both fat and fat-free (or lean body) mass. In persons with normal weight, the contribution of fat-free mass loss often exceeds 35% of total weight loss and weight regain promotes relatively more fat gain.
I have never been a breakfast eater. Even as a kid. So I have always ate at around noon and 5:30. Nothing after. I also played basketball in college and never had an issue with losing muscle. So I guess I have been doing IF for about 55 years.
"A new study suggests intermittent-fasting causes a loss of muscle mass."
The diet "focuses more on when people eat rather than how much they eat. The diet includes periods of fasting or restricted calories. One of the most popular types is the is the 16:8 method in which people only eat during an eight-hour window and fast during the remaining 16 hours of the day."
"But a new randomized clinical trial on the 16-8 intermittent fasting approach raises questions about it's safety and effectiveness. The researchers were surprised to find that weight loss was moderate, at best, and was accompanied by a larger than expected loss of lean mass, which includes muscles.
"Participants....only lost an average of 2 to 3.5 pounds, just slightly more than the control group. They also didn't display any significant improvements in fat mass, fasting insulin, blood sugar or blood lipids."
One serious flaw in that study is they allowed those doing IF to eat whatever they want for 8 hours versus the non-IF were given 3 structured meals. From my experience, it's better to eat healthy while doing IF rather than just letting obese people eat whatever they want for 8 hours, which this study did and why it's a serious flaw in the study.
I initially lost some muscle mass in addition to fat when doing IF but lately I've incorporated more weight and strength training at high weights and gained additional muscle mass.
I have never been a breakfast eater. Even as a kid. So I have always ate at around noon and 5:30. Nothing after. I also played basketball in college and never had an issue with losing muscle. So I guess I have been doing IF for about 55 years.
Were you losing weight during that long period of time? And how much protein were you eating at your last meal of the day?
Last edited by LongevitySeeker; 01-31-2022 at 08:55 AM..
[b]One serious flaw in that study is they allowed those doing IF to eat whatever they want for 8 hours versus the non-IF were given 3 structured meals.
The study was purposely designed to mimic what proponents had been recommending.
Proponents of the diet say it works because people can eat what they want as long as it falls in the restricted window of time.
Quote:
Participants assigned to the control group were asked to eat 3 structured meals a day. Neither group was given any direction on what or how much to eat, or whether they should exercise.
So, they weren't testing what you have been doing, they were testing what they heard was being recommended. One of the co-authors of the study, a cardiologist, was an avid follower of IF before beginning the trial.
When I first heard of this diet, it immediately struck me as being silly. I don't know if it includes drinking during the fasting 16 hours. If it doesn't, it would be a shock to the system, and the body would have to produce water from its fat and muscle tissues. But either way, starving for 16 hours -- and feeling miserable -- and than allowing yourself to eat whatever you want, is a sure way to GAIN weight. You'd have to have an iron will to stop eating when you can before you feel satisfied.
I am doing a total fast, no drinking, for 25 hours, twice a year (for religious reasons). I can attest that it is a shock to the system, and that I do lose some muscle mass after that.
But in general, as everyone here presumably knows, it is a rare diet that succeeds long term. Once you stop the diet, the body will overcompensate for the temporary deprivation and store more fat. You will gain weight as a result.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.