He didn’t die of ill health if that is your drift.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11Calories-t.html

I am sure you can find others if you are interested. Scientists have been studying this for decades and the original theory is ancient.

It was a hot topic with Luigi Carnaro in the 15th Century. Here are some modern (like1833 and 1913 reprints) of his experiences:

http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Luigi+Cornaro&source=an&ei=-RPZSo2WNMPe8QbeuNW3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_group&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&resnum=4&ved=0CBgQsAMwAw

Of course there were questions back then about whether the world is round.

I don´t need to be a scientist to say this studies are somehow false in real life, and we see it everyday.

Hmm … Let´s see .. Caloric restriction makes you live longer and healthier? What the hell?? Some starvation and low food income makes your body better? I surely don´t believe that, and I don´t know why those studies drove to that conclusion! So these are for me some simple contradictions in that theory:

- What about abandoned dogs, living in the street? They eat less then domesticated dogs .. but they are unhealthier, more likely to develop diseases, and die sooner;

- What about people in undevelopped countries? Excepting extreme cases (like subsaharian africa, where they only get carbon hidrates diet) this persons have a low calory income, and a varied diet, but they surely have a life expectancy smaller then wellfed high caloric develloped countries?

- What about vegetarian people? They eat few calories, but they seem skinier and unhealthier then people with a normal caloric diet;

- what about physical activity? With low calories your body won´t have energy to perform them, and not performing them equals to not have all the health benefits from them.

So unless there´s a study that proves me, like 1+1=2, that this diets really get to their point in humans, I´m not buying this.

Cheers

However, Eat Stop Eat protocol requires strength training in addition to IF…a huge metabolic difference. Properly performed strength training which is extremely rare (effectively unknown), especially among medical/university personnel, is by definition, “a shot of growth hormone”. This would dramatically alter the metabolic situation from simple IF alone….many studies support the crucial role of growth hormone in regard to fasting safety and effectiveness.

My experience with the benefits of strength training is more than extensive. If diet is a common factor, effective strength training always makes a huge difference in fat loss regardless of diet.

There are numerous ways of doing IF and it is now well known that a number of top athletes are using IF very successfully. As a well known martial arts conditioning writer and martial artist myself, I (and many others) have had very good results with IF. My interpretation of the research data out there is that IF is mainly a form of Caloric Restriction (CR) which trains the body to run on free fatty acids (and to secrete less insulin as a result).

That reduced insulin secretion and the running on fatty acids – instead of glucose – is probably responsible for the elevation in insulin reported in the negative article which prompted these posts. However, its not a negative thing in itself and the blood glucose elevation is never high enough to be regarded as worrisome hyperglycemia. IF users will have a different blood profile to multiple feeders, but that is because they eat differently. Health should be assessed objectively and not just against rigid criteria aimed at a specific demographic.

Slightly raised sugars during fasts are normal for bodies well adjusted to IF, but are not unhealthy in those circumstances. A similar example of blind adherence to pre-set charts is the way that an athlete has a relatively high BMI measurement – which is bad, according to the charts. High BMI is bad for an inactive, overweight person, with high body fat composition – but not for a lean athlete, with big muscles (who then becomes too heavy for his or her height according to BMI measurements). Similarly, slightly elevated blood sugar is bad for someone eating 3-6 times daily, but not for someone who fasts intermittently.

Note that not all fasting methods produce this effect of slightly elevated sugars to the same extent – mainly, daily fasting protocols do this more than less frequent fasts. But it probably happens for a period during all regular fasting of any type.

One additional value of IF – which accounts for the reason why it still gives the same benefits of CR, even when calories are not actually restricted – is that it appears to activate gene expression of ‘healthy genes’ which prolong life. That’s why animals using IF (but still overeating) share the same extended lifespan benefits as the animals on CR. THE GENES PREVENTING DISORDERS THAT CURTAIL THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL LIFESPAN ARE EXPRESSED BETTER DURING FASTING PERIODS. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE MAIN ADVANTAGE OF IF OVER NORMAL CR. The fasting period is crucial for awakening the life-extending genes most animals have in their cells at various degrees of expression.

Having said all this, although doing IF and using what we’d call the ‘average’ Western diet is still effective – one should only expect to get down to about 10% bodyfat (lower if you have extremely big muscles – but remember the bigger muscles just add weight so that the percentage of your body weight made up by fat is ‘mathematically’ lower – but the actual quantity/weight of body fat is not necessarily changed). e.g. If you have 16 pounds of body fat and weigh 200 pounds, you have 8% bodyfat. Increase your muscle mass by 20 pounds and you weigh 220 pounds. But the body fat still weighs 16 pounds. That’s a lower body fat “percentage” but not actually lower fat levels – beware of stats and body fat measurements, they can never be really accurate and mainly are informative when only one parameter change is made in your regime and looked at comparitively).

Still, 10% is low enough to be defined – maybe not quite ripped though. I usually get down to 8-10% using IF, but without particular focus on quality of diet. I’m not particular about being ‘bodybuilder ripped’ as my training is mainly for functional and health purposes, but I don’t think it would be hard to minimise bodyfat by cleaning up my diet. However, that ‘cleaning up’ act would be a miserable experience, wouldn’t it?

To get to minimum possible body fat (really, that’s about 5% on any of the standard measuring systems) you would need to be as careful with what you eat as anyone else following the multiple meal philosophy (such as bodybuilders). Not for me at this stage, but maybe in the future. Surely, 8-10% is good enough for most of us – isn’t it?

Idai Makaya