Is there any difference between working out before or after you break your fast?

While I don't know about resetting your immune system, there is some evidence that extended fasts (and extended ketosis, I believe) cause autophagy in precancer cells.

I totally buy that…and that makes sense.

it was that 'resetting' that sounded fishy…even if you could 'reset' your immune system I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a good thing

I had read a study recently that the three day fast causes your stem cells to create all new white blood cells. It sounded like it would invigorate a now-defunct immune system, which is why I asked him if he was on chemo or something. Unless you’re elderly or have cancer it wouldn’t make much sense to put in the effort.

I personally do it right before.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nHJhufGbmR0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I intermittent fast and I know it sucks, but I break up my exercise into two different times. I get up in the morning and have a cup of black coffee and then do cardio during my fasted state. Then, after I break fast at lunch, I lift in the afternoon. I think that cardio on an empty stomach helps burn more fat, but you need the energy of food for heavy lifting. Like I said, it kind of sucks to not get all your workout done at one time, but I’ve found this routine to be very beneficial.

You could accomplish the same thing by lifting heavy to deplete glycogen stores and follow that with cardio to burn more fat. Interval training would be your best form of cardio when it follows lifting weights to accomplish this.

Too bad most who lift weights do it with such little intensity. Long cardio sessions aren’t needed to lose fat, provided your weight work is compound exercise such as presses, rows/chins, squats and deadlifts.

Almost everything I've read in this thread goes against everything I always read from 2000-2006 on Elite Fitness & Body Building boards. Amazing how things change. Maybe I was doing it all wrong but I had good results.

There’s many ways to skin a cat.

It’s mostly about daily caloric intake vs what you’re burning. Accomplish that in any way you want and you’ll have success. The stuff that was incorrect was that eating every few hours kept your metabolism high. It really doesn’t matter. It’s just accomplishing calories in vs calories out. Don’t need to get cute with how you do it. Fasting shortens my feeding window and I take in less calories.

Intensity in what regard?

Yeah, I think this way is probably the best. I was doing this for the last couple of years, but recently got stuck in a rut. I changed it up and I’ve dropped a decent amount of fat in the last month. Just something different.

Intensity as measured by percentage of your 1 rep max for multiple working sets. Not wasting so much time doing high rep sets with lighter weight like most people lift.

Down 3.8 pounds since last monday (Start date). Admittedly have not had 16:8 days everyday this week, but have done it 3 times. The other days ranged from 11-14 hours of fasting.

Ah, the ole' you don't know science ad hom/ logical fallacy. That's odd, usually vegans criticize that book. My niece is a registered dietician. I don't have to go reading reams of scientific research. There's all kinds anyway, when it comes to food and nutrition and plenty of it contradicts other studies. There's lo fat, paleo such as Atkins, the Zone, Macro and on and on and on.

What I know is the list for my blood type, matches the list from my blood work by my allergy doctor. I don't rely on the book for one profile but as part of more factors including genetics. Plus, I feel better.

BTW your beloved NIH turned out to be wrong about parabens now that they're being removed from products for being found in biopsies of folks with skin and breast cancer. There was an article in the WSJ about it. Your trusted sources are still on the ole' saturated fat is dangerous for you, when inflammation is now considered more of a health factor for heart issues. They're not always right either. And doctors barely study nutrition—if at all.