I've started doing the 5.2 diet will exercise make me lose weight quicker

Hannahjane123456

I've not been doing this for long but On fast days I've been eating 750 and in the morning before I eat I do a hour on the exercise bike and 30 minutes on the bike and then later before tea I do a hiit workout for 25 minutes and 30 minutes on the bike

And then on the other days I eat around 1400-1500 calories. And do the same amount of exercise as I do on fast days.

Will this make me lose weight quicker do u think rather than doing no exercise at all?

Sued0nim

5:2 for a woman is 500 calories on fast days isn't it? then maintenance on the other days

exercise will increase your TDEE and hence your maintenance calories needs .. and will make you fitter, stronger and increase your willpower and endorphins

what's your stats because rather than following 5:2 it sounds like you're just zig-zagging which also works .. but you have to have a week view

Hannahjane123456

Yea 500 is but I can't stick to that it's stop hard for me. I'm 10 stone 3 and 4 foot 11. How much roughly should I lose a week with following that plan

Unknown

This content has been removed.

TimothyFish

Yes, exercise will cause you to lose weight more quickly, assuming that you would not change your eating habits if you did no exercise.

rybo

So the premise of 5:2 is that you don't need to count cals on non fast days. With that much exercise you can probably get away with 700 on you fast days, but I think you need to get out of the "need to lose weight quickly" mindset.

flumi_f

GuitarJerry wrote: »

The 5:2 diet isn't magic. You're just creating a deficit 2 days a week. It takes roughly 3500 calories to lose 1 lb. So, if you normally eat 1400 calories per day for maintenance, that's 1400 x 7 = 9800 per week. If 2 days you only eat 500. That's 8,000 per week. You created a 1,800 calorie deficit. So, you should lose about 1/2 lb per week at that rate. So, by eating 750, you cut your deficit more. But, by exercising now you increase it a little.

I'm not a fan of the 5:2 because you can see how ridiculously complicated it is. Instead, just eat at a small deficit everyday. It's the same thing.

I am a fan a big of 5:2 and lost 29kg in just over a year and have now maintained for 9-10mth doing it. I do agree with everything GuitarJerry has to say though. Not magic, just another way to achieve a weekly deficit, one that works for me. 1400 is pretty restrictive unless you are very short and light already. At 157cm / 57kg I get 1600-1700 before exercise and 2 days of 500-550cals.

flumi_f

rybo wrote: »

So the premise of 5:2 is that you don't need to count cals on non fast days. With that much exercise you can probably get away with 700 on you fast days, but I think you need to get out of the "need to lose weight quickly" mindset.

Ummm, well that depends... People with good portion control, don't have to count. I would overeat if I didn't. But everyone is different.

Oh and 5:2 isn't a quick fix.

Cryptonomnomicon

A LOT of diet books; too many frankly. Most follow a fairly standard organization, with very very few exceptions, most will tell you that ‘calorie restricted diets don’t work for weight loss’ and that whatever magic they are selling is the key to quick, easy (and of course permanent) weight loss.

Whether it’s insulin, dietary fat, the protein:carbohydrate or insulin:glucagon ratio, partitioning or whatever other BS, they will make it sound like caloric intake is not the key aspect in whether or not someone gains weight.

In almost all cases, the idea that food intake must be restricted in any fashion is dismissed; if it is mentioned it is generally as a short aside late in the book that nobody pays any attention to.

This is purely a psychological ploy; it sucks to have to consciously restrict food intake and this causes mental stress. Simply knowing that you can’t eat what you want when you want it blows; I hate it as much as the next person. Many people will feel hungrier simply because they know that they can’t eat what they want when they want it.

Yet the fundamental fact is that the body will NOT have any need to tap into stored body fat unless the individual is burning more calories than they are taking in(CICO) Of course this means that either energy expenditure has to go up, caloric intake has to go down, or both have to occur.

So how can these books make this claim? It’s simple: they all hide basic caloric restriction in whatever they happen to be proposing. Basically, this is Lyle’s Rule #1 of Diet books:

All diet books tell you that you won’t have to restrict calories, and then trick you into doing it anyway.

ETA: Same with diet fads such as shakeology, IF, Atkins,etc etc

* If eating more frequently makes it easier to control/reduce calories, it will help you to lose weight/fat.
* If eating more frequently makes it harder to control/reduce calories, or makes you eat more, you will gain weight.
* If eating less frequently makes it harder for you to control/reduce calories (because you get hungry and binge), it will hurt your efforts to lose weight/fat.
* If eating less frequently makes it easier for you to control/reduce calories (for any number of reasons), then that will help your efforts to lose weight/fat

Or in other words, personal preference.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/820577

You will find the most successful members on this site follow a very simply method: CICO (calories in vs calories out). Of course they also pay attention to their macro and micro nutrient needs but nutrition is a whole other story. A calorie deficit is key for weight loss alone.

Source:http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html