Intermittent Fasting, and the Rabid Rantings of Martin Berkhan
Posted In Nutrition
\l "\l "
http://anthonycolpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Martin-Berkhan-Cheesecake.jpghttp://anthonycolpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Martin-Berkhan-Cheesecake.jpgMartin Berkhan in happier times.
Gaaz writes:
Hello Anthony,
I'm not sure if you're aware of this but Martin Berkhan of www.leangains.com made a couple of posts to argue your article on Intermittent Fasting (which I thought was fabulous by the way). 
Here's the first....
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3587831&p=551663563&viewfull=1#post551663563
[Here's an excerpt of Berkhan's comments from the above link]: 
"JMT,
I will address that soon but I'm baffled by Colpo's sloppiness and dishonesty.
1. He does not mention that DEHYDRATION is a major ****ing issue and negatively affects performance during Ramadan when he cites those studies.
2. The rest of the studies are cherry-picked to show only negative effects. For example, he does not mention those numerous studies that show no decrease in REE after ADF/IF or fasting. Nah, he picks the ONE AND ONLY study that shows a decrease.
He even refers to Alan's review at the end. Alan changed his stance long ago:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/03/ala...t-fasting.html
I find his behavior really bizarre and out of character. His articles are usually good and well researched and I suspect he's just after some extra traffic because he knows IF is a hot topic.
Nothing wrong with a little link baiting but it does not excuse his sloppy and misleading article.
How convenient that he's turned off comments on his blog."
And here is the second....
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3587831&p=584269493&viewfull=1#post584269493
[This links to a forum post in which Berkhan goes on and on and on and on about how yours truly allegedly ‘cherry-picked’ a single study showing a decline in resting energy expenditure as a result of intermittent fasting. And when he’s done going on about it, he goes on about it some more].
It seems this guy knows you don't spend a whole lot of time on the internet so he just throws small shots at you in places he thinks you won't see them. Of course he practically makes a living toting his IF views so any contradicting evidence that someone displays will surely piss him off. 
Keep up the great work my friend. There's not many people I look up to, and you're one of them. 
Gaaz.
Anthony replies:
Wow. Another brave Internet warrior hurling insults and defamatory accusations from thousands of miles away. Martin really needs to take an extra-strength chill pill and address his anger issues. I don’t know the guy from a bag of beans and have never even mentioned let alone derided him or his work in my life, yet the guy goes off like a wayward firecracker, as if I impugned the virtue of his mother or something. SHOUTING, swearing, ranting, falsely accusing me of dishonesty/cherry-picking /sloppiness, attacking me for turning my ‘blog’ comments off (for the record, they were never turned on in the first place), maliciously accusing me of trying to create controversy in order to increase my web traffic … crikey, what the hell flew up this guy’s culo?
Martin, switch to decaffeinated and get some counseling immediately. Seriously mate - if what I said in my Intermittent Fasting article gets you so hot and bothered, I can only imagine what happens when you get overcharged on your electricity bill…
Now - I’m happy to address Martin’s spurious claims, but Mr. Berkhan has to promise to sit down and behave himself while I speak. Atta boy Martin!
Awrighty, now that everyone’s seated and happy, let’s begin.
Let’s Talk About Dehydration
The scowling Martin angrily writes of yours truly:
“He does not mention that DEHYDRATION is a major ****ing issue and negatively affects performance during Ramadan when he cites those studies.”
Well e-x-c-u-s-e me!
You know what, I didn’t address the issue of dehydration – but I will be more than happy to now, seeing as Martin has brought it up. He’s probably going to wish he hadn’t by the time I’m finished, but hey, if he feels so strongly about the issue, I’m more than happy to oblige.
So Martin, let’s talk about dehydration!
Science has repeatedly shown hypohydration and dehydration (as defined by fluid-derived 1 and 2% loss of adequately hydrated body weight, respectively) impair performance in endurance and strength/power activities[1,2]. You don’t need to train for hours on end before this effect kicks in – a 1.5% body weight loss from dehydration can reduce performance on a single 1RM bench press[3].
Yes indeed, when it comes to sports performance, DEHYDRATION can be a major ****ing issue! ****ing ay!!!
Much to the chagrin of Muslim athletes, who must refrain from food and fluids during the daylight hours of Ramadan, the 2012 London Olympics will be occurring during the traditional Ramadan period. This has caused an intensified effort among sports scientists to determine the cause of the performance decrements routinely seen in studies of exercising Ramadan fasters. Despite the increased attention devoted to this issue, scientists have yet to decide exactly what causes the performance deterioration. While Martin wants you to believe that dehydration is the only possible factor negatively affecting performance during Ramadan fasting, scientists have identified a number of factors which possibly all contribute to some degree. The main ones seem to be sleep disturbances, glycaemic issues (hypoglycaemia and glycogen depletion/availability), lactate accumulation, perturbations in acid-buffering capabilities and, yes, hypohydration/dehydration.
Rather than bang on about the relative contribution of these factors to exercise deterioration during Ramadan, let’s take a look at what happens when dehydration is removed as a confounding factor from studies of exercise during fasting. Let’s forget about Ramadan studies, and look at the research involving regular research subjects who were equally hydrated whilst exercising under fasted and non-fasted conditions.
Fasted versus Non-Fasted Exercise
The earliest study (to my knowledge) examining daytime fasting and exercise performance was conducted by Steven Loy and colleagues from the Human Performance Research Center at Brigham Young University in Utah[4]. Previous animal research had shown that fasted rats ran two hours longer than fed rats, so they set about to determine whether or not a 24-hour fast could increase endurance in humans. Back then - as do IF proponents now - some folks speculated that a fasting-induced increase in the availability of fatty acids would boost athletic performance. The 24 hour time frame is relevant because it pretty much replicates the one-meal-per-day pattern recommended by Warrior Diet author Ori Hofmekler (special note to the Einstein/s who will inevitably write me about how Hofmekler permits coffee and fruit/vegetable juices during the day: have you stopped to consider if you’re drinking calorie-containing beverages during the day it’s not fasting? And that if you need caffeine to drive you through a day of fasting then maybe, just maybe, you should reconsider the whole fasting gig?)
I like the Loy study because it was well thought out (if you read the paper, you’ll be impressed at the researchers’ attention to detail) and involved real athletes; all the subjects were competitive cyclists knocking out a minimum of 193 km/wk. Three to five weeks before their test ride they all incorporated stationary cycle exercise into their training schedule, 1 hour/day, 5 days/week at around 85% of their maximum heart rate. I mention this because it eliminates the possibility that the test results were confounded by test familiarization (as is likely the case in the 2 of 5 cyclists that experienced improvements in the Phinney zero-carb study that low-carbers always wank on about). By the time the tests were conducted, the subjects were already well and truly acclimated to stationary cycling.
Anyway, when experiment time rolled around, four of the cyclists were tested at an initial intensity of 86% VO2max, the remaining 6 were tested at 79% VO2max. The researchers tested time to fatigue in both groups at not one, but two points: “fatigue 1” occurred when pedal frequency could not be maintained at the initial percent VO2 max; “fatigue 2” occurred when pedal frequency could not be maintained at a workload of 65% VO2 max. When that happened, the researchers knew the cyclists were pretty much buggered and told them to call it a day.
The last meal before the test was a 355-calorie liquid meal consisting of 53% carbohydrate, 32% fat, and 15% protein. In the non-fasting experiment, this meal was consumed 3 hours before testing, whereas it was consumed 24 hours prior to testing in the fasting experiment. Unlike Ramadan fasters, the subjects were under no compulsion to refrain from liquid consumption during daylight hours and water was consumed ad libitum during the 24-hour fast. Subjects were also encouraged to drink water regularly throughout the test itself.
So what happened? Did fasting propel the adequately-hydrated cyclists into some magical fat-burning zone that allowed them to keep pedalling into the next century?
Hardly.
While fasting did indeed significantly increase blood free fatty acid levels, it sent time-to-fatigue plummeting. Fatigue 1 and 2 times for the 86% VO2max group during fasting were 42 and 170 minutes, respectively, compared with 115.3 and 201 minutes during the normal-diet condition. Fatigue 1 and 2 times for the 79% VO2max group were 142 and 167.5 minutes in the fasted state compared with 191.3 and 214.3 minutes in the non-fasted state. We’re talking some pretty major reductions in performance, folks.
This study is yet another shining example of why extreme caution should be employed when extrapolating the results of animal studies onto humans. We’re talking 2 entirely different species, folks…
As they were venturing into uncharted waters at the time, the researchers could only speculate as to what caused the performance decrements in the fasted state. Not surprisingly, the higher intensity group (82% VO2max) recorded the shortest time-to-exhaustion result; the data showed that blood lactate levels at “fatigue 1” in this group skyrocketed during the fasted test, suggesting that fatigue resulted from lactate-induced pH changes in the muscle. The researchers also speculated “Another possible cause of fatigue at fatigue 1 in this group could have been glycogen depletion of selective muscle fibers due to the combination of high-intensity power output due to the combination of high-intensity power output and the high rate of pedaling. As these fibers fatigued, the subjects were unable to maintain the very high rate of pedaling frequency required of them. By reducing the resistance, exercise could continue.
The cause of fatigue at fatigue 2 in all subgroups appears to be a combination of hypoglycemia as well as muscle glycogen depletion...times to fatigue 2 at both intensities can be explained by the probable reduced liver glycogen content in these subjects as a result of fasting and the subsequent inability to maintain blood glucose for as long as fed subjects, who started with adequate liver glycogen stores."
Whatever the reason, the results were clear: after 24 hours of fasting, endurance performance of well-trained cyclists promptly went down the gurgler.
Fasting Doesn’t Help Exercise in Scotland, Either
In an attempt to further expand upon the work of Loy et al, the formidable research team of Gleeson, Maughan, and Greenhaff in Aberdeen, Scotland decided to run a study of their own[5].
They tested six healthy men on a stationary bike before and after 24 hours of fasting. In this study, they tested endurance performance during maximal cycle exercise (100% VO2max), where the fall in muscle pH and/or phosphocreatine levels rather than the depletion of muscle glycogen stores would be a major factor in fatigue. The two test rides occurred in random order and were separated by 1 week. The last meal for both fasting and non-fasting treatments was a 750-calorie liquid meal with the same macro ratio used by Loy et al. This meal was consumed 4 hours before exercise in the non-fasting test and 24 hours prior to the fasted ride. Water was consumed ad libitum during the 24 hour fast.
Despite ensuring that the men were adequately hydrated in both tests, mean endurance time was significantly lower after fasting (212 seconds) compared with normal eating (243 seconds).
Along with similar hydration, there were no differences in blood glucose or lactate. In fact, lactate levels were higher after the non-fasted test, which was probably a result of the longer time spent riding at maximal intensity.
So if hydration, blood sugar, or lactate didn’t explain the findings, what did?
Well, blood ketones and free fatty acids were significantly higher before the test in the fasted state, which in turn may explain why blood Pco2 (carbon dioxide partial pressure), plasma bicarbonate concentration and blood base excess were all lower in the fasted group prior to exercise. If you’re wondering what the hell that all meant, it basically indicates the fasting state seems to have produced an “acidic” state which in turn reduced the ability to buffer the hydrogen ions that produce fatigue during balls-to-the-wall exercise.
In another study that would have relevance to every-other-day Intermittent fasters, Maughan and Gleeson ran another study comparing cycling performance after overnight and 36-hour fasts[6]. The subjects actually had to perform four tests, all of which required drinking a 400 ml solution prior to exercise. After the overnight fast and one of the 36-hour fasts, the subjects drank a placebo (artificially-sweetened water). After the remaining 36-hour fasts, the subjects consumed either 1g per kg body weight of glucose or glycerol. Exercise-induced dehydration in all conditions was minimised by oral administration of 100 ml of cool water at standardized intervals throughout the exercise test.
By now, everyone except Martin can probably guess what happened. Yep, the 36-hour fast significantly shortened endurance performance. While the overnight fast permitted the subjects to pedal for a mean 119.5 minutes, the placebo-, glucose-, and glycerol-36-hour fasts resulted in ride times of only 77.7, 92.4 and 80.8, respectively.
Again, free fatty acids and ketones were much higher after the 36-hour fasts compared to the overnight fasts. The researchers concluded that glycogen depletion was the most likely cause of the impaired performance and also noted that BCAA levels were lower during exercise after the 36-hour fasts (there is evidence to suggest that reduced blood levels of BCAAs may reduce central fatigue during exercise, although attempts to alter this via BCAA supplementation have largely failed[7,8]).
So the evidence seems pretty clear: Intermittent fasts that involve one meal per day and eating every other day pretty much suck the salsiccia when it comes to supporting higher intensity endurance exercise.
Before Martin starts yelling, screaming and kicking the furniture, it behoves me to mention a study by some researchers he’s evidently fond of citing: De Bock et al. In this study, male subjects trained thrice weekly for 6 weeks, 1-2 hours at a time at 75% VO2max. All training sessions occurred between 7-12 am. So this was not a study about intermittent fasting; it was a comparison of fasted versus non-fasted morning cardio. One group performed their sessions 90 minutes after a carb-rich breakfast and also consumed a maltodextrin solution (1g malto/kg bodyweight) during exercise. The other group performed their training sessions with no breakfast and consumed an identical amount of water during exercise. At the end of 6 weeks, cycling time to exhaustion had increased similarly in both groups[9]. Folks like Martin would probably argue that, while one-meal and every-other-day Intermittent fasts haven’t acquitted themselves very well, these results support 2-meal-per-day fasts. They would no doubt argue that if exercise and training performance at 75% VO2max is not impaired after regular overnight fasting, why would it be impaired during Intermittent fasts comprised of a morning meal and a big dinner (a la Ramadan fasting), so long as euhydration is maintained?
My response would be that it is somewhat disingenuous to extrapolate the results of a study only involving overnight fasting to subjects engaged in overnight and daytime fasting (the overnight fasters ate extra calories during the afternoon to make up for those lost by skipping breakfast and carbs during exercise). And even if we generously assume that these results can be extrapolated, at best they show that performance won’t be impaired; no performance advantages whatsoever occurred in this study, even after allowing six weeks for them to surface (having said that, while I don’t endorse 2-meal per-day eating plans, I would certainly recommend them over 1-meal and every-other-day regimens in a heartbeat).
Bottom line: The research indicates that one-meal-per-day and every-other-day Intermittent fasting regimens will decimate your cycling performance at higher intensity levels. The effect of 2-meal-per-day regimens in euhydrated research subjects is unknown, although such regimens have repeatedly induced poorer performance in Ramadan fasters. Whether the Ramadan effect is due to hydration, glycaemic, circadian or other metabolic issues, or a combination of all these factors, is unknown at present. Research by DeBock suggests that thrice weekly training after an overnight fast at 75% VO2max will produce similar gains to exercising in a non-fasted state. However, an overnight fast can hardly be considered “Intermittent fasting” as it is engaged in by every non-intermittent fasting human being on the planet that sleeps at night.
The REE Red Herring
Martin seems to be really, really, really, really irate that I had the temerity to mention the drop in resting energy expenditure (REE) noted by Soeters et al. Martin is uber-pissed because I didn’t mention that other studies involving IF failed to show reductions in REE. Martin is claiming that I cherry-picked the Soeters study to make it look like all IF studies have shown REE reductions.
Rubbish.
To the contrary, Martin’s the one who’s cherry-picking here. How so? My book The Fat Loss Bible, which was available for several years prior to my IF article, features an entire chapter examining the effect of meal frequency on energy expenditure and weight loss. Among the studies reviewed are a dozen trials in which one- or 2-meal regimens were compared with multiple meal regimens. As I emphatically concluded in that chapter, researchers have repeatedly failed to find any difference in weight loss or energy expenditure as a result of varying meal frequency.
So let’s be clear: I do not claim, and have never claimed, that eating a prescribed amount of calories in one or 2 meals will result in lower REE than isocaloric intakes spread over a higher number of meals. I have in fact repeatedly gone on the record stating the exact opposite: namely, that calories – not macro ratios or meal frequency - are king.
My IF article was not a review of the effects of IF on energy expenditure, and made absolutely no claim to be. I discussed the Soeters study primarily because it examined fat loss and muscle gain, which IF shills (with no scientific evidence) claim are accelerated on IF diets. I mentioned the REE results as a point of interest, and to show that they hardly support the notion that IF increases metabolism. Here’s what I summarized about the Soeters study:
'Nonetheless, the finding of decreased REE hardly supports claims for a special fat-burning effect of IF. As the researchers pointed out, “a decrease in REE may also increase body weight if isocaloric IF diets are consumed for longer periods and/or if physical activity is unaltered. Our study period has not been long enough to increase body weight.”'
At no point did I state that the reductions seen in the Soeters study were a universal finding.
The REE discussion, in the context of the entire article, was almost a side note and pretty darn tentative in nature. Maybe I should have emphasized this a little more vociferously as a safeguard against psychotic nitpickers, but sometimes I naively overestimate the intelligence of dissenting readers. So Martin, stop putting words in my mouth, take your blood pressure medication and get over it, for crying out loud. My main point, that you spend so little time addressing, is that there is bugger all evidence that these IF plans increase muscle gain and fat loss, as their most prominent shills claim.
You even inadvertently acknowledge this, citing study after study showing no change in REE on IF regimens – just as I did in The Fat Loss Bible. So what exactly is your caper, Martin? Why are you accusing me of cherry-picking when I did no such thing? Why are you so hell bent on taking a minor part of my article and disingenuously attempting to blow it up into something it’s not? Hmmm, maybe you’re just after some extra traffic because you know Colpo-derision is a hot topic among all the hate-mongering low-carbers and Paleo jokers that fall for this IF hogwash…
When ‘Huge’ Is Really ‘Teeny Weeny’
In his post found at that second link, Martin claims a study by Van Proeyen et al showed “huge differences in bodycomposition [SIC] in favor of the fasted group”.
At long last! A study showing a “huge” advantage in body composition results among subjects on an intermittent fasting regimen! Cool! Let me pull it up and scan through it…just give me a few minutes here folks…
[Sound of Anthony clicking his mouse, sipping green tea and whistling “Rockaway Beach” by the Ramones].
OK everyone, I’ve just finished reading the study…and I’ve got bad news. Martin’s been telling porkies. Again.
The study he’s referring to is:
Van Proeyen K, et al. Training in the fasted state improves glucose tolerance during fat-rich diet. Journal of Physiology, 2010; 588 (21): 4289–4302.
Before I discuss this study, I need to make something perfectly clear: this was not a study about intermittent fasting. Like the DeBrock study, it was a trial comparing morning cardio in the fasted and non-fasted state. I’m not sure why Martin insists on citing such studies as if they were IF trials – my guess is he’s grasping onto any study containing the word “fasting” that can be made to appear supportive of IF. But the reality is that performing cardio before breakfast and IF are not the same thing. Heck, during one especially successful cutting cycle back in the late 90s – the first time I was ever measured at sub-5% body fat – I performed fasted cardio every morning (brisk walking for 60-75 minutes). Was I intermittent fasting? No way, Jose – I was eating six meals per day, every day during the cut. People who eat regular diets have been performing fasted morning cardio since time immemorial, and it reeks of both disingenuity and desperation for IF advocates to attempt to claim them as intermittent fasters.
But anyway, let’s continue. In the Van Proeyen study, healthy male volunteers (18–25 years old) were told to follow a hyper-caloric diet (around 30% above maintenance calories) comprised of 50% fat for 6 weeks. Ten of the subjects performed endurance exercise training (4 mornings per week) in the fasted state, whilst another 10 performed the same training 90 minutes after breakfast. Another seven subjects followed the high-fat diet but did no training. Before and after each dietary period, the subjects were weighed and subjected to skinfold measurements.
According to Martin, the fasted cardio group experienced “huge” differences in body composition.
How “huge” were these differences? Are you sure you want to know? I mean, I’m really not sure if you folks can handle the hugeness, the incredible gigantic gargantuan enormousness of the differences! You reckon you can, huh? Oh well, if you insist…
Drum roll please…
Brace yourself folks, here it comes…
Compared to the group that trained after breakfast, the fasted cardio group lost … an extra … 800 grams.
That’s right folks, a humungous 0.8 kilograms over 6 weeks! Wooohooo, baby!
I’ll give you folks a few moments to digest the hugeness of this piddling difference.
While you do that, I’ll also point out that while the fasted group experienced a greater sum skinfold reduction, it didn’t even begin to approach statistical significance.
I’ll also point out that this was a free-living study in which daily food intake and extraneous activity was not controlled, so the minuscule 800 gram difference could easily be explained by unreported variations in caloric intake and energy expenditure.
What a complete and utter joke. C’mon Martin – if you’re like most people, I bet you’ve taken trips to the restroom where you emerged 800 grams lighter. To claim this minuscule difference as some sort of “huge” advantage for IF is flat out ree-dee-culous!
Especially given that studies which did indeed involve 1 and 2-meal-per-day regimens have roundly failed to show any fat or weight loss advantage[10-21].
So tell me who's the cherry-picker again?
Alan Aragon Kinda Sorta Changed His Stance – And You Should Know, Colpo!
Martin complains: “He even refers to Alan's review at the end. Alan changed his stance long ago”
Gee, forgive me for not knowing that Alan had changed his stance! (And only partially, I might add; Alan’s comments indicate he hasn’t exactly embraced the concept with open arms). While I’m flattered that you read my website Martin, I don’t read yours. And I certainly don’t frequent bodybuilding forums; heaven help me the day my life becomes that boring. Please don’t take offense, but I really am a busy guy who tries to spend as little time on the Internet as possible. As such, I don’t have the time nor the inclination to keep track of every single thing that you, Alan, nor anyone else has ever written on the topic of IF. I prefer to focus on what’s written in the scientific literature rather than Internet posts. I’ve happily removed the link to Alan’s article from my site – if people want to know what Alan thinks on the topic, they can visit his site. Alan’s a very bright guy and a top bloke, and I always respect his opinion, but my sentiments on IF remain unchanged.
My Advice to Martin
Martin, if you’ve managed to read this far without smashing your computer into thousands of tiny fragments, then I’d like to extend the following offer: If you do come across compelling evidence that shows concrete real-life benefits for Intermittent fasting that I’ve overlooked, you’re always welcome to email me. I’m not interested in gene expression changes or other alterations in esoteric markers of unknown relevance; I’m after real-life, significant and concrete differences in outcomes such as fat loss, muscle gain, and exercise performance. In addition, your correspondence has to be civil – if you email me and begin ranting in the deranged manner that you’ve been displaying on Internet forums, you’ll get shut down faster than a hobo trying to pick up a supermodel.
If evidence ever emerges to show that IF can do all the things it has been hyped to do, then I’ll happily adjust my stance accordingly. I’m not an unreasonable guy, and am always willing to change my views in the face of convincing evidence. Heck, I was once as avid a low-carber as you could find; but when reality sunk in and I became aware of the multiple flaws of that style of eating, I dropped it like an annoying girlfriend.
At this point in time, the evidence to support the hyperbolic claims of IF proponents just isn’t there. I know you’re heavily invested in the IF paradigm and therefore don’t like hearing such a statement, but it’s the only conclusion I can honestly come to after reviewing the available research. And even if you continue to disagree, which I’m sure you will, there’s no need to act like a raving lunatic when I or anyone else posts a critical appraisal of IF.
Sure, if I was a pompous, smug, misogynistic old fart of a 'guru' who made a habit of deriding all-and-sundry for their “unscientific” claims and “confirmation bias”, but then took 2 totally different studies of vastly different durations from two distant countries involving totally different participants with starkly contrasting activity levels, and then compared them as if they were one and the same and triumphantly presented them as proof that IF sucks, called anyone who disagreed a "fool", and then topped it off by mentioning you by name and claiming you were wrong (hmmm, why does that scenario sound so familiar... ), then I could certainly understand your angst. But I did nothing of the sort, so I really don’t understand why you feel the need to carry on like your ass just caught fire. Geez dude, it’s not like I accused you of having a teeny weeny pecker, claimed you were fond of other blokes, or insinuated your mother was involved in the world’s oldest profession, so get a grip for chrissakes.
What I did do was present a review of intermittent fasting and explain how the evidence simply did not support the claims being made for it. You have presented nothing of substance disputing my contention that IF routinely decreases physical performance and offers no fat loss or muscle building advantage.
http://anthonycolpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/martin-berkhan-drinking.jpghttp://anthonycolpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/martin-berkhan-drinking.jpg
Martin, I know you're upset about my IF article, but alcohol isn't the answer...
Martin, you might like to seriously consider whether your intermittent fasting regimen is doing your mental state any favours, given the well documented link between hypoglycaemia and mood deterioration. Perhaps a higher carbohydrate intake and a more frequent eating regimen will prevent blood sugar lows, lower your catecholamine levels, and make you a little less, uh, “edgy”. If you try all that, and still can’t rationally address considered criticisms of your pet dietary paradigm without going off like a bomb, then you really should get some professional help immediately.
Anyway, I’ve said enough. Boys night out, so time for me to go do some non-fasted laughing, back-slapping and shit-talking with the fellas…
Adios!
Update: Shortly after posting this article, another reader informed me that Berkhan had posted a reply:
Berkhan Strikes Back: May the Farce Be With You
LH writes:
Hey Anthony,
Berkhan hasn't wasted any time replying to your article. Seems he can dish it out but can't take it:
http://justpaste.it/gk9
Keep fighting the good fight, my friend!
LH
Anthony replies:
Hey LH,
I love it. A reply like that pretty much supports everything I've said. No discussion of the science whatsoever, just more absurd and totally false attacks on my persona.
And to top it off, the guy who launched a totally unprovoked attack on me - cursing, making slanderous statements, shouting and ranting in ALL-CAPS - whines that it's me who's good for little other than attacking people
Without any provocation from yours truly, he furiously badmouths me on Internet forums as if my IF article was some sort of personal affront to him, then claims I'm the one with "hurt feelings"...
Martin Berkhan makes about as much sense as wheelie bin theft.
Unlike bully-boy Martin, I don't start fights. I merely defend myself against those who have taken it upon themselves to attack me first (I'll admit to exceptions in the cases of Gary Taubes and T. Colin Campbell, whose books I truly believe to be terribly misleading pieces of literature. And I'm hardly the only person who's publicly articulated as much). But folks like Eades, Hahn, Moore, Nikoley and Berkhan have all taken it upon themselves to fire the opening volley. Sorry Martin, but you can't go around unfairly badmouthing and dumping on others then get all prissy when the target of your unbridled derision exercises his right of reply.
And it's also most hypocritical for a one-trick pony whose entire site is devoted to wanking on about the overblown IF craze to falsely claim I only write about carbs and calories!
http://anthonycolpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/american-psycho-christian-bale.jpghttp://anthonycolpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/american-psycho-christian-bale.jpgAn intermittent faster after reading an AnthonyColpo.com article. 
Marty accuses me of being an "Internet Marketer". Well yeah, I sell books on the Internet - just like Martin, and a gazillion or so other people - but try finding an "affiliate" page on my site. For better or worse, I spend about as much time on marketing as Martin does successfully attending anger management courses. Heck, I've pretty much been running the same pitch page for The Fat Loss Bible since it first came out, even though it is sorely in need of an overhaul (I've updated the book itself, but not my site. Yep, I guess that makes me guilty of being a rabid marketer with little regard for the quality of the products I sell). Yeah, I know, I should pay way more attention to my marketing, but I have this thing called "a life", not to mention other sources of income. Try finding any forum or blog comment section posts where, like Martin, I wank and on and on about my pet theories in an attempt to draw attention to myself. Brew yourself a big pot of tea, because you'll be searching a long, long time.
Martin continues to expand on his initial displays of world-beating ignorance by claiming I have never consulted or worked with real clients. You wanna bet and place some serious money on that BS claim, Martin?
As for Marty's claim that I twice admitted I'm wrong in my reply to his crazed rantings...??? I'm not sure what mind-altering substances Martin was under the influence of when reading my article, but I did nothing of the sort. The article clearly stated that Martin was wrong on all counts, and his latest reply provides absolutely nothing to refute my claim. Oh, with the exception of a whimpering objection that he and others still regard the piddling 800 gram difference in the free-living and therefore uncontrolled Van Proeyen study to be significant. Whatever...people can decide for themselves whether such a miniscule difference - which could easily be attributed to uncontrolled variations in caloric intake and activity levels, in a study that did not even involve intermittent fasting - still somehow constitutes confirmation of the alleged mighty fat-burning effects of IF.
Martin's illogical, disconnected and ad hominem rant is yet another demonstration as to why low-carb diets and diets featuring lengthy gaps between meals should be avoided by those with a tendency towards anger, depression and other psychological issues.
For the sake of those around you, start eating more often Martin. You'll feel better in the morning. And afternoon. And evening.
Enough said...I have no further time to waste on an angry, washed-up IF fanatic whose life is devoted to pimping the fads of yesteryear. I wish Martin all the best for the future and hope he one day meets a nice girl who can calm him down and help him clean up after his house-wrecking outbursts