@ Amy & Dave - thanks a lot for the intelligent arguments, I love a good discussion and it is so lacking in most places. I think that we've gotten to that 90% mark - we agree on 90% of this stuff, its the small details where we may differ. Most people like to focus on and argue about the details while I like to focus on the fact that we agree on far more than we disagree on. Science will always be a double edged sword and it is only dangerous when people don't realize that it is. One of my best friends is a paleontologist and a hard-core "science guy" and we have had this discussion many times. It always comes back to the fact that you can't argue with good science but a lot of it gets misrepresented by scientists who fail to add on the all-important "this is what we think" to the end of their statements. Far too often things are presented as fact by the scientific community when they know perfectly well that is not the case. Thanks again for the great discussion, look forward to doing it again...

Oh yeah, one last thing...you pointed out that the few studies you did find on IF simply showed an increase in lifespan. If IF is dangerous then it wouldn't result in a longer life, would it? Logically speaking, if you lived longer from something then it must be doing something "good" for you. I know they were animal studies but we've extrapolated more from animal studies. Again, the human studies aren't there because the money isn't there, not because it is dangerous.

3 & 4) Under the "guidance" of the medical community we have seen obesity become and epidemic and this become the first generation that probably won't outlive their parents. Humans can adapt to anything (ask a WWII POW or concentration camp survivor) including a grain heavy diet but that doesn't mean that it is creating an optimal metabolic environment. Read the book Sugar Nation for a spine chilling look at exactly how "pure" the science behind our food recommendations are. The biggest donors to nutritional science are the grain and cereal companies, do you really think that they are going to fund studies that might contradict the party line of eating grains from breakfast to dinner? The science showing that diet and exercise can help control diabetes is lacking, not becuase it doesn't work but because the funds aren't there. To assume that science is "purer" or somehow has their hands less dirty than the commercial sector is laughable. I appreciate your quest for the truth and I would never want anyone to take me just at my word. However, your professors have enamored you with the scientific process without being honest with you about the dark side of it. Lastly, I'm not sure what monetary links I posted. Ori's site is free and so is the special report from JB. Just becuase they make money from selling stuff of their sites isn't wrong. I do have an affiliate account with Dragon Door so I would get a small % of Purposeful Primitive sales but if you think that I would post something just to make money then you shouldn't believe anything I write. Just because someone makes money off of something doesn't make it wrong. The dudes in the lab coats aren't working for free...

@ AmyFork - Good points but I have a few counter-points/ questions. 1) Many scientific studies show that strength training dos not improve cycling performance, yet you are following a strength training program for mountain biking. You seem willing to try stuff based on mere speculation, which is good in my opinion. 2) People are easily fooled - look at SportsLegs (ha ha ha). Anyways, a lot of drug studies show that the placebo was only slightly less effective than the actual drug, yet the drug still got approved. The placebo effect is very strong and very real, however it is not a reason to dismiss the results or else you'd throw out studies that showed the sugar pill acting like the actual drug.

@ dsd - I have to respectfully ask why you are so certain that more weight loss could be experienced? And do you know for certain that no athletes use a form of intermittent fasting? I don't know but I can't say the other way for sure. All sorts of good things can happen when you fast, you fast every night when you sleep. Does extending the fast a few hours suddenly turn you into a muscle and performance wasting mess? I ask because I know the "nutrition party line", I espoused it for years and still do. However, there are some big questions about the attitude towards any sort of hunger or fasting period and I don't think that anyone can say that eating every 2-3 hours is the one and only way. And yes, what you eat plays a bigger role but for some, not eating during the day limits their chances to make bad decisions. Eating at night when you are most likely to be at home means that you will be in the most controlled environment possible. For some this may trump anything else. As fat loss and performance training expert Alwyn Cosgrove says "psychology trumps physiology".

Lastly, where do you think science figures out what to study? Science doesn't "discover" anything, they look at what successful coaches do and then try to figure out why it works. This idea that you have to wait for science to sign off on something is the reason that you still have people doing 3 sets of 10 reps on a machine circuit and doing long, slow cardio to burn fat. A mix of science, looking at what other successful coaches do and some common sense is the best bet and being told that you have to wait for multiple studies to prove something works before you can try it is one of the reasons there are so many bad trainers out there. BTW, there is some science behind this but again, you would have to have looked into some of the resources I provided to know that. Look, I don't have any monetary interest in this at all so I have no idea why some of you think this is an ad for something. I resisted this idea for a long time (this is not a new idea and the Warrior Diet has been around for almost 10 years), however too many coaches that I respect have started to talk about the potential benefits of IF. After trying it myself I felt that there was something there and that it might provide an alternative way to approach nutrition for those that find the "eat every 2-3 hours" advice impractical or ineffective. I am not saying that this is the one and only way to eat, simply an alternative viewpoint. And not having a nutritional strategy is not the same as "being on the Warrior Diet without realizing it". Intermittent Fasting is far more than just not eating all day and then pigging out at night. You still have to eat smart, avoiding sugar and refined carbs. Plus, the Warrior Diet is one way to integrate IF into your diet, but again, you'd have to follow up on some of the provided resources to know that. Sounding off without further investigation is all too easy.

I really hate debates on the internet because no one ever wins, it is far too easy to isolate parts of a post/ article and take them out of context or be a smart ass (I know about backpacks to pack water and food in, thanks). First, my arguments were in response to the original post which implied that no nutritional experts or science were backing up the idea of Intermittent Fasting, which is not true. I would never just point to an expert and say to believe them without looking more into it, that is a lazy argument. However, the fact that there is some science, more than one nutritional expert has talked about the benefits of IF and I do have a lot of experience in the trenches, which should count for something, although it is not a complete argument. Second, I have to say that everyone who has discounted this is being intellectually lazy. I have provided 3 resources to check out, all of which contain both scientific and anecdotal evidence. It is not up to me to spell it out for you, I have provided the resources and it is up to you to do some homework on it. To post an opinion on this without even reading the free special report I linked to shows that your minds are made up already and you have no desire to look into alternative viewpoints. That is fine, just don't tell me that I am wrong and that there is not basis for this type of diet when you won't even click a link and download a well researched and thoughtful report put together by one of the smartest guys in nutrition today.

I certainly understand where you are coming from, if you notice I said that I was in the same camp for many years. I did not just hear about this yesterday and jump on board. But when guys like John Berardi, Ph. D., who happens to be a consultant for multiple Olympic teams and professional athletes, says that there is something there then I listen. Read the special report I linked to, it has a lot of emerging science behind this. What they teach in school is usually about 10 years behind what we are doing in the trenches or, as Mark Twain said, don't let your schooling get in the way of your education. BTW, if you can't go more than 3 hours without eating then what to you do on long rides? I think that you should be able to go for a 4-5 hour ride without needing a lot of food which is not possible if you have trained your body to eat instead of accessing your internal energy stores. Relying too much on the blood sugar-insulin loop for energy instead of being able to easily access the glucagon-glycogen loop is not good for endurance athletes and I think that IF can have some benefits in that area. Unlike the vast majority of the armchair experts here I actually work with clients on a daily basis and have seen that the whole "eat every 2-3 hours" works for some but not for others. Taking a few nutrition classes does not replace a decade in the trenches...