In dietetics, there are, unfortunately, many myths, but most false beliefs do not derive strictly from wrong source data but their over-interpretation or applying wrong measures. Later, aspects of minor importance grow to elementary principles of diet composition. Temporary and conditional convergences are often considered as universal and incontrovertible facts and pillars of a healthy diet.

This is a serious mistake, but it has a simple explanation: there is a strong need in ourselves to receive simple, categorical messages. Acquiring information sounding: "there are reasons to believe that in case of X, the given application of Y contributes to increasing body fat," is much less convenient than the same thing encoded into the message: "Y is fattening". If the message goes on a fertile ground and is replicated by people a community recognizes as authoritative, it becomes a governing principle and is not disputes. When many of these "rules" are gathered, it begs the revolution.

When making a fair review of competent literature it is difficult to find any confirmation for beliefs according to which higher frequency of meals speeds up metabolism. However, a recommendation to increase the frequency of meals in order to accelerate metabolism is among dietary standards. Similarly, it is difficult to discern in the scientific literature to support validity of eating 30g of protein in each meal or of not having carbohydrates before bedtime. In opinions of many, however, such dependence exists and should not be questioned.

Enthusiasts of adaptation of a nutritional model, which assumes the concept of 'periodic fasting' called "EAT / DON'T EAT" (which is simply a clone of Leangains), put considerable pressure on dispelling existing myths. Thanks to representation of the Intermittent Fasting idea on specific practical examples they made a thorough refurbishment in the minds of many. The essence of their teachings can be put on banners just before going out in the streets to proclaim: "End to compulsory breakfasts", "Say no to hours spent in the kitchen and sad grinding of chicken with rice". You can not eat all day, eat to your heart's content in the evening and make progress at the gym, lift more weights, reduce fat or build muscle, and, according to some, do it all together!

A diet which is based on assumptions of 'IF' has gained the greatest popularity primarily among people who until now were "slaves to their meals." But does the new alternative give a real liberation? I will try to find the answer to this question in the following part of the article.

How to slip out of schemes

It has been said that there is no escape from one Form, only to another one; only in this case it means standards limiting our freedom. I quoted this sentence in order to point out that a dogmatic adherence to certain rules, in this case related to the composing menu, creates a certain regime. Whether it is a "compulsion" to eat six meals a day or to fast for several hours, there will always be a kind of molds which you will have to adjust to. Meanwhile, the 'IF' concept is often portrayed as a way to liberation from burdensome regimen.

In practice, however, you must reckon with the fact that a denial of food for several more hours may also be a challenge. Besides, let's be honest: 'Periodic fasting' is not the only way to break stereotypes. You can be equally successful with composing a diet based on three meals, evenly spaced throughout the day, without the necessity to take rice and meat dish with you to work and also without fasting for several hours per day, or doing your training "on an empty". In fact, there are many "alternative solutions" to prevail conventions solutions that have both some advantages, and disadvantages. The key is to be able to see them and make a conscious choice.

But the fact that the menu structure taking into account the "intermittent fasting" has been used in supporting your work for better body, it should be incentive to revise certain beliefs about actual importance of individual actions and nutritional concepts established as the only right and necessary. In fact, neither eating six meals a day every three hours nor receiving no more than 30g of protein per one dish, not even the need to eat a hearty breakfast with simultaneous reduced intake of carbohydrates in your meals the evening, determine the impact of a diet on your figure or health. A revision of popular beliefs on a global basis requires time, and even after careful analysis, it will possibly never be complete.

Undoubtedly, what speaks in favor of the idea of ​​'IF' is quite a number of scientific publications and popular science; but what works to its disadvantage is their frequent over-interpretation the examples of which can be found on online forums. Many nutritional enthusiasts who propagate introduction of "periodic fasting" goes a little too far in their deliberations and add their own interpretation to very interesting and worth exploring concepts. On the other hand, it is hardly surprising that some misconceptions and inaccuracies arise, many issues relating to the potential of the 'IF' are still unclear and require examination.

Contrary to some beliefs, "periodic fasting" lasting several hours is not the only alternative to compulsory six-meal nutritional regimen. You can see good progress in both mass building and reduction having five, four or three meals a day. The advantages of 'IF' involving the "liberation" from the burden of "rice and chicken lunch boxes" are confronted with the exaggerated concept in which the main character is tied to the kitchen and forced to spend most of their time on boring cooking. Meanwhile, there are many other ways to make cooking fun, and temporary fast is not necessity.