[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by sa226

To counter TheSutterDynasty, fad or not, unlike Atkins, MEVY, That stupid Herbal pill diet, and any other of those "fad" diets, I think intermittent fasting is the most likely to be maintained and thats why its gaining popularity.

Maybe.. but back when the Atkins was first gaining steam it was much the same. Turns out all the later research said that it's a great alternative to a simple calorie reduction, but it was much harder to maintain. Luckily it really only matters if it works for you (who cares what a study says if you maintain a weight loss for years and years?)

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

1. I have not seen any evidence yet that suggests intermittent fasting promotes any sort of disordered eating.

Nor have I, but knowing how high the incidence of disordered eating may be (one such study in the UK - 10% of respondents had some form of disordered eating by their standards) you could certainly see some individuals taking it to the extreme. Especially when many of the people utilizing fasting may already be the type to overeat, you're now telling them it's 'ok' to overeat as long as there is a compensatory fast (or 'purge'). Again, just a theory.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

2. I think that's a subjective thing. Two things about me, I don't particularly like eating first thing in the morning, and I like having filling meals, so IF is easy to maintain for me because it ticks both of those boxes. I led a healthy lifestyle before I started IF (I used ketosis with calorie restriction and exercise to lose a ton of weight, then what I learned from that process along with exercise to maintain it -- I now use ketosis for cutting), and I continue to lead one now that I'm doing IF. I see it as a way to help me achieve my goals and enjoy doing it.

A lot of other people seem to fall into this category as well. I eat every 1-2 hours and it can be very inconvenient.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

4. One of the PubMed articles linked by the Fitocracy wiki notes that it appears that IF is better for retention of muscle mass during weight loss compared to calorie restriction alone. (source) I would wager that is due to the body entering ketosis during the later stages of the fasting period, mobilizing fat stores.

There are some issues with the studies included in this review. The main one being that it's such short term (12 weeks), when our main question about fasting is how well you can maintain it.

The study also notes some pretty significant methodological issues:

No dose–response relationship between greater degree of energy restriction and larger amounts of weight loss was identified in the trials examined here, however (4,9,11–13,15,16). For instance, similar weight loss (6% from baseline) after 12–13 weeks of treatment was demonstrated with 16% energy restriction (13) and 23% energy restriction (12). Moreover, the trial (4) that reported the greatest degree of energy restriction (63%) only resulted in slightly greater weight loss (16% body weight reduction after 22 weeks of treatment), than a trial (15) that reported 23% energy restriction (13% weight loss after 20 weeks of treatment). The lack of relationship between degree of energy restriction and amount of weight loss may be due to poor dietary intervention control. Although food was provided in some of these trials (4,15), the investigators did not control for extra food items that may have been consumed after the subjects left the research centre. If the subjects did consume extra food items (i.e. in addition to the food provided), this would greatly decrease the degree of energy restriction over the course of the trial.

And here is a huge problem with comparing fat loss vs muscle loss and why these studies don't tell us a whole let (yet) about whether fasting better helps you maintain muscle:

It is important to note, however, that comparing values for fat mass and fat free mass between studies is difficult as different techniques were employed to assess these parameters. More specifically, the majority of daily CR trials implemented dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), while the majority of intermittent CR trials employed bioelectrical impedance analysis. It is well known that DXA and MRI are vastly more accurate techniques for the assessment of fat mass and fat free mass when compared to bioelectrical impedance analysis (33).

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

As for Atkins, ketogenic diets (<20g carbs/day, the 'induction phase' of Atkins, basically) are gaining huge traction in treating severely obese patients, reducing and in many cases all but eliminating Type II diabetes. Sustainability varies, I found it easy to sub out carbs for more veggies, but if you're a vegan/vegetarian, you're going to find a ketogenic diet unsustainable due to the reliance on fat-rich protein-moderate food sources that aren't also teeming with non-dietary fiber carbohydrates.

Which makes sense as metabolic syndromes/diabetes are all about an inability to metabolize glucose. I'd be curious to see the difference between removing carbs and changing all carbs to those with a low glycemic index and which is #1 easier to maintain and #2 better for exercise (ie does low carb diet reduce subjective energy/glycogen stores more than a diet with only low GI foods).