Science doesn't prove anything... Science fails to disprove things, which strengthens the possibility that things might be true. So what you're actually saying is that science failed to prove that this diet was not effective, which suggests that it might be effective (in the population that they tested, with the constraints that they imposed...).

Wow, you must be fun at parties.

He's also correct ;)

Reading the ST link to the forum comment, 90% of that is time tested common sense from decades ago for completely normal folks. Not even athletes.

People didn't sit in front of the TV until 11PM eating and drinking stuff 40 years ago. At least my grandparents didn't. Their dinner was at 5:30 and that was it. They "might" have had an occasional bowl of digestive tract healthy cereal around 7:30 or 8:00. That was usually right before they read their Bible for 30min and went to bed at 9:00.

They didn't eat at feeding trough buffets, ate proper sized meals, had some water and a snack after some kind of exertion........etc.....

It also meant they weren't up all night pissing since they drank up until 10PM.

I feel like people serious about sport transition to the more normal way of feeding anyway. I can't race bike up hills and be over the w/kg ratio acceptable for my class of racing. You'll be out the back in 5 minutes. Didn't fuel properly before a hammer ride....out the back.

It's just describing a normal level of discipline with eating largely absent the entire American population in modern times that we actually used to have.

Can someone explain how you do an intermittent fast(8 hr eating window) while training for an Ironman? I train in the morning at 5am with just coffee preworkout. If I eat from 7am-3pm, then I am starving by bedtime. I've also tried eating only from 11am-7pm, but I am starving after my morning workout. If I am not training, then 11am-7pm works fine.

Is that your null hypothesis? x2 that he is correct!

My hypothesis: My thread title was click baity enough to get you to click on it. AND comment.

Only because I was already familiar with the Desert Dude diet.

But going back to the study, I don't believe that you can have different outcomes from the same # of calories is "common sense." Or it wasn't. Maybe it's starting to become common sense.

There've been a number of studies now that provide evidence (to avoid sophistry from @Trauma) that suggest a good diet takes more consideration than the "it's just thermodynamics" crowd (which has a mafia on this forum). E.g. this one from February where diet quality also provided a positive outcome with no consideration of calorie count.

Congratulations?
You must be so proud of yourself.....

Hormones FTW.

Insulin, Leptin, and Ghrelin make a difference. What and when you eat can influence them.

Rule #9: For every PT/MD/STer who says there is absolutely one single and perfect way to do anything [and they have the data to support it], there is another PT/MD/STer who will say that way of doing whatever it may be, is completely and absolutely bullshit [and they have the data to support it, as well]

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

While it is true that there is no mention of calorie counting per se, the participants were on a "healthy diet" so presumably they were at the very least watching the amount of food they were eating. The main point of this study appears to be that there was no sig diff between the effects of a low-fat diet vs a low carb diet. While is is no doubt true that eating so called "healthy food" fills a person up with fewer calories, at the end of the day a calorie is still a calorie. IMO, eat whatever you want but watch very closely how many cals you are consuming.

"In this randomized clinical trial among 609 overweight adults, weight change over 12 months was not significantly different for participants in the healthy low fat (HLF) diet group (−5.3 kg) vs the healthy low carb (HLC) diet group (−6.0 kg), and there was no significant diet-genotype interaction or diet-insulin interaction with 12-month weight loss."

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

That's the thing, though. In the study there were zero instructions about calorie watching.

From a NYT interview of the PI,:

“A couple weeks into the study people were asking when we were going to tell them how many calories to cut back on,” he said. “And months into the study they said, ‘Thank you! We’ve had to do that so many times in the past.’”

But the population did quite well in losing weight, as a whole. Some by 50-60lbs.

I'll say one thing from experience doing intermittent fasting....

if you dont eat enough during that window and you are consistently too low on calories while training for an ironman, you will pay for it with every symptom that typically comes across as "over training"

Weight loss is a math equation, calories in vs. calories out.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Where's the actual paper making this claim? From the WP article, it doesn't seem like it was ever published (hmm...).

I'd be interested in the controls ensuring that mice actually ate the same amount of calories; 28% WEIGHT difference (not weight reduction) implies a substantial difference in net burn.

It is true for the closed thermodynamic systems. Live humans are - fortunately - not closed systems.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

So has anyone gotten this to work while doing daily doubles? I train early in the am and late pm and fasting would mean I wouldn't get protein after one of the workouts. Now I know that Desert Dude says you can eat efter a workout, but that ruins the entire point of intermittent fasting. I got some recommendations from people saying you can do only amino acids till lunch, and the break fast from lunch but haven't tried yet. I'm at around 4-5kkcal/day

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Bots don't eat ;)

Sure, but that may be better as a description than a prescription. It seems that calorie tracking may not be a particularly useful way to try to lose weight for most people. It appears that focusing on things like food quality and timing may be more effective.

Well, maybe they are onto something here but i think we'll need many more studies to truly verify this principle that you just need to "eat healthy" but not watch your calories. Also, while some may have lost 50-60 lb, the mean values were 5.3-6.0 kg, or about 11.7 to 13.2 lb, which is not a large amount to lose over 12 months, espec given that the mean participant was about 5'6.6" and 207 lb to start out.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I thought this was proved a long time ago and not sure where Desert Dude got his info but I first read it in Body, Mind and Sport by John Douillard published in 1994 and he follows his advice exactly. Basically his explanation your body comes out of a cleanse and recovery mode on waking and by lunch time your metabolism is at it's peak and you should be having your most calories and by night your metabolism shuts down and your body goes into a cleanse and recover mode during sleep.


Brad Wiggins wouldn't eat breakfast until having sat on a trainer to get his metabolism going in the morning as not to put on weight.


I watched the episode of the controlled group in the article below and everyone that had breakfast 90 min later and dinner 90 min earlier lost weight eating their same meals.


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35290671