IF & Opinions for cutting

Hi all,

So something which has caught my attention a lot recently is Intermittent Fasting for when it comes to cutting.
Something along the lines of stop eating by 9PM, then only eating again at 1PM (so roughly 16 hours of no eating, then 8 hour window to eat) - pushing your first meal of the day out by quite a bit which would help you stay in your calorie deficit and not end up super hungry and grumpy for the entire day by just eating less for each meal.

The below video basically explains it a bit and states a few things which help make IF work as well as it *apparently* does. He seems to be following more of a IIFMM diet while applying the IF, lets say you are eating "clean" and you are applying IF.




He mentioned thermogenic effect and that it does not really matter whether you get your calories from 8 small meals or 2 large meals, your body will still burn calories the same? However I would imagine it to be most ideal to eat around the time of your workout. So perhaps a bit before and then after?

He also mentioned that when pushing the first meal out that your growth hormone increase quite a lot, apparently by around 2000% (sounds insane IMO) and this helps to prevent muscle loss and gets your body to take a bit more of its energy from fat as opposed to muscle.


How true is this, does it sound plausible? What are your opinions?
Anyone here like to make use of it - I think Furk does? How does it work for you?

I am really only interested in IF for cutting, trying to bulk with having a limited time period to eat all the food required seems as if it would be quite a task and one made easier by having a larger period in which to consume all your required calories for the bulk!

Dude if you are not convinced enough to adopt a philosophy, read a book on the subject. Not limited to just related. Something like Eat Stop Eat by Brad Pilon, mountains of research. I can't see the link from Tapatalk so I can't comment on the author's credibility, but what you said above is correct.

I break my fast from 1300 to 1600, and try to stop eating at 2000, but maybe have some salad later. I only train fasted, unless I want to do cardio late night. Life's too complicated for 8 meals a day. But super heavy weights will never adopt this method successfully due to the amount of calories they need to consume .

Furk wrote: Dude if you are not convinced enough to adopt a philosophy, read a book on the subject. Not limited to just related. Something like Eat Stop Eat by Brad Pilon, mountains of research. I can't see the link from Tapatalk so I can't comment on the author's credibility, but what you said above is correct.

I break my fast from 1300 to 1600, and try to stop eating at 2000, but maybe have some salad later. I only train fasted, unless I want to do cardio late night. Life's too complicated for 8 meals a day. But super heavy weights will never adopt this method successfully due to the amount of calories they need to consume .

I am in no way saying that IF does not work or isn't great - to me it sounds great, I have tried it a bit and it seems rather effective however I have not experimented all that much and tried tons of various diets.


However the fact that growth hormone sky rockets when applying intermittent fasting correctly almost sounds too good to be true and the other thing which I have heard contradicting things about is eating all your calories in say a single meal vs 8 multiple meals and the effect it has on your weight / your body being able to use it and not end up storing it as fat.

I do not have much knowledge on the law of thermogenics, from Googling a bit I think it is basically that calorie surplus = weight gain and calorie deficit = weight loss? Therefore even if you eat a single meal in a day and end up at maintenance your weight shall remain the exact same regardless or whether it would be high GI, processed sugary foods or some good "clean" foods with complex, low GI carbs etc. etc.

Only thing which I can think of which might change is your fat:muslce ratio however your weight would remain the same??

Hey man,

Just read your post. I'll have to go through some books and journals to get more accurate numbers on the GH, because Kinobody says 2000% for men, 1300% forum ladies. Sounds a bit much, but ja, GH increase is the 2nd biggest reason folks do it, helps to prolong longevity.

Concerning thermogenesis, on a arithmetic sense it's true, and for all practical purposes that's how people wanting to control bodyweight should approach it. There are better and worse choices one can make for your allotted calories. For example, eating donuts and whey for months on end will be retarded cause you'll end up with Scurvy and Beriberi etc etc etc. Just because it fits your macros perfectly, doesn't mean it fits optimum bodily function perfectly. There's been ripples of news, studies, theories and anecdotes that it can be *slightly* cheated. It was even suggested that the caloric value of Protein be changed to 3.7 cals/gram. On a basic level what I always tell folks: "The amount of calories you ingest determines the amount of weight change - your activities determines how it alters."

With GI question, like above, better and worse choices. Sure X grams of Coca-Cola might be equivalent to Y grams of rolled oats, but one will release slowly, giving a larger window for using the energy boost, the other might leave you feeling sluggish a short while after.