Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Dec-18-17, 08:51
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,555
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default Intermittent vs. constant calorie restriction

Quote:
Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men: the MATADOR study.
Byrne NM1,2, Sainsbury A3, King NA2, Hills AP1,2, Wood RE1,2.
Author information
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:
The MATADOR (Minimising Adaptive Thermogenesis And Deactivating Obesity Rebound) study examined whether intermittent energy restriction (ER) improved weight loss efficiency compared with continuous ER and, if so, whether intermittent ER attenuated compensatory responses associated with ER.

SUBJECTS/METHODS:
Fifty-one men with obesity were randomised to 16 weeks of either: (1) continuous (CON), or (2) intermittent (INT) ER completed as 8 2-week blocks of ER alternating with 7 2-week blocks of energy balance (30 weeks total). Forty-seven participants completed a 4-week baseline phase and commenced the intervention (CON: N=23, 39.46.8 years, 111.19.1 kg, 34.33.0 kg m-2; INT: N=24, 39.89.5 years, 110.213.8 kg, 34.14.0 kg m-2). During ER, energy intake was equivalent to 67% of weight maintenance requirements in both groups. Body weight, fat mass (FM), fat-free mass (FFM) and resting energy expenditure (REE) were measured throughout the study.

RESULTS:
For the N=19 CON and N=17 INT who completed the intervention per protocol, weight loss was greater for INT (14.15.6 vs 9.12.9 kg; P<0.001). INT had greater FM loss (12.34.8 vs 8.04.2 kg; P<0.01), but FFM loss was similar (INT: 1.81.6 vs CON: 1.22.5 kg; P=0.4). Mean weight change during the 7 2-week INT energy balance blocks was minimal (0.00.3 kg). While reduction in absolute REE did not differ between groups (INT: -502481 vs CON: -624557 kJ d-1; P=0.5), after adjusting for changes in body composition, it was significantly lower in INT (INT: -360502 vs CON: -749498 kJ d-1; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:
Greater weight and fat loss was achieved with intermittent ER. Interrupting ER with energy balance 'rest periods' may reduce compensatory metabolic responses and, in turn, improve weight loss efficiency.International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 19 September 2017; doi:10.1038/ijo.2017.206.


https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2017206

The study is open access. The idea that by making calorie restriction of a limited duration, you might avoid adaptations that could make maintenance more difficult or diminish weight loss over time is interesting.

When you look at adaptation to a ketogenic diet, and how long that can take, you can see how a couple of weeks of calorie restriction might only result in a partial adaptation, with a reversal during the diet rest, etc. It would be interesting to see this applied to a low carb or ketogenic diet. Also to look at different lengths of time for the ups and downs.

I know in doing low calorie diets in the past, I'd be hungrier the first couple days, and then become accustomed to a lower calorie intake, it can be easier to remain on a diet once you're on it than to get on it when you're not. So that might be a problem, but since the up weeks aren't ad lib but rather eating to maintenance, that might be different, you'd still be on a controlled diet, just not a weight loss diet in those weeks.

With intermittent fasting, sometimes the question comes up for people doing approaches like one meal a day--if you're eating less every day for the 24 hour period, isn't that calorie restriction? In a way it's not, because you'd be eating more per unit of time during the feeding window--but this other sort of up/down approach seems like another way to address that concern, not having calories low every day seems like a decent approach.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Dec-18-17, 09:59
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,391
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Ima give you an analogy that isn't strictly the same but still illustrates a plausible mechanism or principle for benefits of IR.

Traffic. Lots of cars, all the time, lots of collisions. Solution, put permanent obstacles to slow down traffic, fewer collisions. Or so we believe, because we believe the primary cause of collisions is high speed. The fact is it's the speed difference between the two vehicles, but that's besides the point here. The point is, the more obstacles, the longer they are there, the more time any vehicle stays on the road, the longer this traffic lasts, the higher the probability of collisions between two vehicles, worse result.

The actual solution is to remove any and all obstacles, to allow traffic to flow freely and faster. This means for example to add parking space to reduce the time it takes to park, to reduce the time of this obstacle. Widen roads, smaller cars, overpass for pedestrians, etc.

Assuming we have the same total amount of cars, total time for traffic is going to be less. Normally, traffic is made up of all kinds of vehicles, including the cleaning crew, emergency vehicles and so forth. In a situation where the cause of the emergency is traffic itself, the emergency vehicles contribute to this same traffic, thus increasing the likelihood of more collisions, and then some more. Of course I'm not saying we let people bleed out in the streets just to flush traffic. The gist is that if there's no other vehicle on the roads, any single vehicle will be that much quicker on those roads.

So for our physiology, how this works. Chronic vs acute. Several smaller meals vs one big meal. Time of injury vs time of repairs. Bear in mind the point isn't to allow greater injury, but to give more time for repairs between injuries. It's a recurring event. In turn, more time for repairs means greater capacity to handle injury, or more specifically lesser effect from same level of subsequent injury, because the system is now stronger. If the system is always injured, never enough time to repair, the next injury will add to the first, making it worse and worse.

Now if we also reduce the amplitude of the recurring injury - by going LC - the system will always have more than enough time to repair injuries from the recurring events and from other potential events like infections for example. Repair may not be complete the first day, but the surplus - like the constant smaller injury that adds to itself - will add up each time.

I don't know if that's how it actually works, but it makes sense to me. Never mind the "we're adapted to whatever" argument, this is just a plausible principle.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Dec-18-17, 10:24
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,555
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Sure, I'm good with your analogy, as far as it goes. But plenty of people just cut carbs, make that their main dietary concern, and get where they want to go. And plenty of people find they need to consider other things. Some find as long as they're low carb, paying attention to daily calorie intake, chronically, keeps them where they want to be. Others find intermittent fasting helpful. Some find neither helpful. Metabolism is still largely a black box, individuals make individual adjustments and see what comes out the other side.

It isn't really clear that damage is being done in the up phases of these intermittent approaches.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:19.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.