ADF - A diet that works and is good for your health!

[Halb]

Hoofy said:

Starvation mode would only kick in after a month of ultra low calorie dieting. Given that you're eating what ever the hell you want every other day, I can't see why starvation mode would ever make itself known apart from hearing it from those who think it kicks in after five minutes.

Seems it happens a lot sooner than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

Edited by Halb on Wednesday 3rd October 19:42

[tyrewrecker]

Carl_Spackler said:

I've been doing this for 4 weeks now, 2/5, since watching the bbc documentary.

The first 2 weeks I got it wrong and did 2 days in a row, plus I didn't eat anything other than a bowl of porridge in the morning, crikey it was hard! and the whole your body goes into starvation mode and stores fat nonsense, is nonsense, I must have lost 1/2 a Stone in 2 days!!

So I'm now doing it correctly, fast on a Monday and a Wednesday, but I still try to fast a little more than 600 cals, I've a pretty sedentary job so feel 600 is a bit much for me.

I've not lost any weight, nor have i put any on, but I'm doing it for the health benefits, not to lose any weight so that suits me fine.

I now look forward to a Monday fast as it's quite cleansing, I feel that the crap I've been eating and drinking over the weekend is getting cleared out my system as I burn it off, taking my "tank" to empty. (PH analogy)

All in all I'm enjoying it.

Not lost weight
Odd

[Hoofy]

Halb said:

Hoofy said:

Starvation mode would only kick in after a month of ultra low calorie dieting. Given that you're eating what ever the hell you want every other day, I can't see why starvation mode would ever make itself known apart from hearing it from those who think it kicks in after five minutes.

Seems it happens a lot sooner than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

Edited by Halb on Wednesday 3rd October 19:42

That's when you actually don't eat a thing, is it not?

[Halb]

Correct. Is there anything saying its different otherwise?

[Hoofy]

Halb said:

Correct. Is there anything saying its different otherwise?

In ADF, we eat every day to varying degrees, do we not? Hence, starvation mode doesn't kick in after 3 days.

[Halb]

Hoofy said:

In ADF, we eat every day to varying degrees, do we not? Hence, starvation mode doesn't kick in after 3 days.

Reducing calories has an effect on the body, reduce drastically, effect is larger, reduce not so much, effect is lessened. In the link starvation comes in at three days after a fast. Not a complete fast might be a bit longer. For it to come in as long as a month I would guess the reduction in calories would be small enough for the effects to be negligible and/or not even noticeable.
Where does the 30 days come from, did you read it somewhere?

[Hoofy]

Halb said:

Reducing calories has an effect on the body, reduce drastically, effect is larger, reduce not so much, effect is lessened. In the link starvation comes in at three days after a fast. Not a complete fast might be a bit longer. For it to come in as long as a month I would guess the reduction in calories would be small enough for the effects to be negligible and/or not even noticeable.
Where does the 30 days come from, did you read it somewhere?

My "month" was just "a long time" to suggest it wasn't a couple of days or hours.

Can you highlight the part of the link that suggests Starvation Mode kicks in irrespective of whether we eat or not? I understood the link as it only kicks in if you continually do not eat for 3 days.

[Halb]

Hoofy said:

My "month" was just "a long time" to suggest it wasn't a couple of days or hours.
Can you highlight the part of the link that suggests Starvation Mode kicks in irrespective of whether we eat or not? I understood the link as it only kicks in if you continually do not eat for 3 days.

So you made it up then?

I didn't say irrespective.

[Hoofy]

Halb said:

So you made it up then?

I didn't say irrespective.

I didn't make it up. Starvation mode when you diet (as opposed to not eating) takes ages to kick in. Like a month... or more or less. The specific timing is irrelevant... it's just something you don't have to worry about with ADF. That's my point.

I said irrespective. Is it not irrespective? Tell me what the link says in your words.

[Halb]

Hoofy said:

I didn't make it up. Starvation mode when you diet (as opposed to not eating) takes ages to kick in. Like a month... or more or less. The specific timing is irrelevant... it's just something you don't have to worry about with ADF. That's my point.

I said irrespective. Is it not irrespective? Tell me what the link says in your words.

If you haven't got something to link to Hoofy then it's your own thoughts. Not being funny but I was expecting some sort of data or research in a link.

The link shows the shortest time SM kicks in is 3 days, that's with a full fast. I would think that logic deems it can be elongated with calorie input. The more calories the longer the halt. So I was thinking it might be pushed back to a period of thirty days, but that the time difference was so huge, that the actually amount of calorie restriction would be negligible as to if you could actually ever really get into SM. A fine line. Like recruiting motor neurons, you either recruit them, or you don't.

[Hoofy]

Halb said:

If you haven't got something to link to Hoofy then it's your own thoughts. Not being funny but I was expecting some sort of data or research in a link.

The link shows the shortest time SM kicks in is 3 days, that's with a full fast. I would think that logic deems it can be elongated with calorie input. The more calories the longer the halt. So I was thinking it might be pushed back to a period of thirty days, but that the time difference was so huge, that the actually amount of calorie restriction would be negligible as to if you could actually ever really get into SM. A fine line. Like recruiting motor neurons, you either recruit them, or you don't.

Right. So given that you eat your normal intake the next day, SM isn't something to worry about with ADF. And even less so with a calorie deficit diet that isn't crazily low in calories. Adaptive thermogenesis, however, is an issue it seems.

[Halb]

Hoofy said:

Right. So given that you eat your normal intake the next day, SM isn't something to worry about with ADF. And even less so with a calorie deficit diet that isn't crazily low in calories. Adaptive thermogenesis, however, is an issue it seems.

I think the most accurate thing to say with this most inaccurate of things is that it's variable.
There are so many variations you just can't slap a sticker on it and say, x happens at y time.
As you say, adaptation occur, if done in a timely fashion.

There was a documentary on, years ago. A scientist was experimenting with is own body (the best sort of scientist), he was restricting his calorie input, and I mean seriously restricting it, for years. Measuring out his meals to the gram, in beans and whatnot. He ate less and a fakir. He was studying the effects of reduced calories to longevity. He looked thin, but he was healthy. I wish I could recall the programme or name to keep up with his work...if he's still alive.

[Hoofy]

Halb said:

I think the most accurate thing to say with this most inaccurate of things is that it's variable.
There are so many variations you just can't slap a sticker on it and say, x happens at y time.
As you say, adaptation occur, if done in a timely fashion.

There was a documentary on, years ago. A scientist was experimenting with is own body (the best sort of scientist), he was restricting his calorie input, and I mean seriously restricting it, for years. Measuring out his meals to the gram, in beans and whatnot. He ate less and a fakir. He was studying the effects of reduced calories to longevity. He looked thin, but he was healthy. I wish I could recall the programme or name to keep up with his work...if he's still alive.

Sure. I would have been better off saying "a long time". In any case, as much as I want to knock ADF, the Horizon programme has converted me.

[Halb]

Hoofy said:

Sure. I would have been better off saying "a long time". In any case, as much as I want to knock ADF, the Horizon programme has converted me.

Yip, it slipped the last cog into place for me, or whatever, but I wanna try a different tack first.
Just need to sort out my larder.

[BuzzLightyear]

Interesting reading your conversation, hoofy and halb. Thanks.

The interesting aspect of this for me is the "science" (for want of a better word) of whether this regime really delivers the benefits it is supposed to. The difficulty is that it would take a long time and a comprehensive sample size, measured accurately to determine this conclusively. However, I'm happy to give it a trial myself to see if it benefits me personally and hope that others will contribute to the thread similarly - both positive and negative experiences.

[Halb]

Hoofy and myself have interesting chats.


The thing about connections in the brain being remade is a good enough reason to try ADF for me!

[Hoofy]

Slightly off-topic but why ADF and not IF?

[Halb]

Hoofy said:

Slightly off-topic but why ADF and not IF?

If for me? I don't know what the difference is.
I like the idea of normal day/600 cals/normal day.
That was one of the ones in Horizon, along with 5/2?

[Lost_BMW]

Halb said:

Hoofy said:

Starvation mode would only kick in after a month of ultra low calorie dieting. Given that you're eating what ever the hell you want every other day, I can't see why starvation mode would ever make itself known apart from hearing it from those who think it kicks in after five minutes.

Seems it happens a lot sooner than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

Edited by Halb on Wednesday 3rd October 19:42

I can vouch for that after many years of experimenting with diets including low calorie for extended periods, cycling calories (over either 3 day low, 1 day high or up to 6 day low, 1 high) not eating until later then one or two meals, usually after training - similar to the intermittent fasting approaches, low calorie for more extended periods, low to zero carbs and real fasting = no food for 1, 2 or 4 days.

On a low calorie and esp. low to zero carb routine it won't take more than 3 or 4 days before I nudge into ketosis (unmistakable!) and after a relatively short time I'm positve my metabolism slows - signalled at least partly by the fact that then adding calories back over more than a few days (even if less than a previous non-diet norm) will put weight back on. Water weight very quickly but fat also.

In fact I think for me - as reported for many of the yoyo dieters - the too extreme, too long lasting drastic cutbacks without 'days off' to stop the body shutting down can lead to problems by encouraging weight gain as soon as the process is stopped even if I/they don't go OTT and beyond the previous average pre-diet intake.

I think the 5/2 and IF approaches have a lot of merit, even just for fat loss let alone the hormonal/health benefits.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Wednesday 3rd October 22:43

[Hoofy]

Halb said:

If for me? I don't know what the difference is.
I like the idea of normal day/600 cals/normal day.
That was one of the ones in Horizon, along with 5/2?

That's right...

I thought IF included shorter fasting periods eg 16 hours but you eat much more than 600 cals? ISTR ADF requires you to eat no more than 600 calories.

Ah. According to wikipedia, ADF is a subset of IF.

IF: http://artofmanliness.com/2012/01/25/intermittent-...