Is a fast diet unhealthy? 500 cals a day?
Replies
-
asflatasapancake wrote: »I've heard of the 5:2 split. Eat light for 2 days, then the next 5 days make up the calories that were missed. I'm not an expert, but this seems a bit unhealthy to me. Why not eat at a slight to moderate calorie deficit every day? Technically, it shouldn't matter when you eat at a deficit during the week. Just as long as you are eating at a deficit. My guess is you will be miserable. Prepare for being dizzy and nauseous at the very least. What are the supposed benefits of doing this? Answer: there are none. Just my two cents. Take it or leave it.
The 5:2 diet is not unhealthy if done correctly. What the OP is talking about is a crash diet that has nothing to do with 5:2.
to the bolded part, because that would be too easy and is not "fast" enough ...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
When I was way younger, I tried alot of those kind of diets. Cabbage soup diet, 3 day diet, blah blah blah. And like others said, I lost a few pounds but it all came back. I personally wouldn't make myself miserable to lose a few pounds to be gained back within the next day or so after stopping it.0
-
NicoleS107 wrote: »Blondie, I don't think it's unhealthy. I am currently doing the same thing. I can burn a few pounds and then maintain.
you don't think it's unhealthy to consume only 500 calories for 10 days?
really?
wow
People do water fasts for as long or longer sometimes for spiritual reasons, and many people say, "oh, well that's okay if it's for spiritual growth." I doubt there will be any real physical damage doing 500 calories for 10 days if the person is medically healthy. However, I would have to question if there are psychological issues that are causing a look for a quick fix like that, when a healthier deficit could accomplish the goal in 2 months. This type of thinking could lead to larger issues down the road. I personally considered fasting as a quick solution years back when I started getting desperate to lose weight, but I realized it came from a negative emotional state and trying to find an easy solution. I'd also wager that any loss, not counting the obvious water weight, would probably be put right back on in a couple of weeks once eating returned to pre-fast levels.
Anyways, as others have said, OP is probably thinking of the 5:2 plan, which is a managed way of eating, not a crash diet. Search for the 5:2 groups here and do some actual digging so you understand what it really means to eat that lifestyle. I followed it last year and sometimes use it when I go over my calorie goal for the day so I can aim for a weekly go instead.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Given your weight, I would guess that you would lose somewhere between 1 and 2 lbs of fat over the 10 days, and possibly some muscle to go with it. A bad diet for ten days probably won't kill you. If it would, more people would die while on vacation. But why mess with it? Just eat at 1200 for ten weeks and you're done.
who are these people that go on vacation and eat 500 calories a day?????????????
If anything I eat MORE on vacation, not less-and so do most people from what I can gather having actually talked to people who go on holiday and the threads that are started here about people gaining whilst on holiday.
Seriously Mr Fish, where the hell do you get some of the 'information' you come out with most of the time?! I see nothing to back up the vague claims!0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »I've heard of the 5:2 split. Eat light for 2 days, then the next 5 days make up the calories that were missed. I'm not an expert, but this seems a bit unhealthy to me. Why not eat at a slight to moderate calorie deficit every day? Technically, it shouldn't matter when you eat at a deficit during the week. Just as long as you are eating at a deficit. My guess is you will be miserable. Prepare for being dizzy and nauseous at the very least. What are the supposed benefits of doing this? Answer: there are none. Just my two cents. Take it or leave it.
It's eat light (500-600 calories) for 2 days out of the week, then eat maintenance for 5 days (not making up the calories you missed). The 2 days don't need to be consecutive, but some people do that. It's not unhealthy at all, because people still meet their weekly deficit, macros, and micros if they follow the plan correctly. The benefit is that people can get their weekly deficit over in just two days, and then get to eat at maintenance for 5 whole days. It's simply a mental thing that allows them to feel fuller for those 5 days while feel like they only have to sacrifice for 2 days instead of 7 while controlling their intake. Some people even do it for a maintenance diet as well so ensure they don't start overeating again.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
asflatasapancake wrote: »In essence, they are eating calories missed on the maintenance days.
That's not the case. On maintenance days, they are eating the amount of calories needed to reach their TDEE for that day, not to make up for calories from the previous fasting days. The "missed" calories are just gone towards the deficit. If they were eating back missed calories, they'd have to eat over their TDEE either spaced out throughout the 5 days, or in one big shot.
Most people would create anywhere from a 1500-3000 calorie deficit eating 500-600 calories for the day, depending on age, gender, weight, and activity level. Twice a week then would be 3000-6000 for most people. Those calories are gone, since the other days are maintenance. They stay missing ;-) This would lead to about a 1-2 pounds a week ballpark weight loss, assuming they actually ate maintenance on the 5 days. Most people on this program will set their MFP goal to maintain their weight, so they know specifically how much to eat on those 5 maintenance days.
0 -
It is worth noting that the 5:2 diet isn't aimed at weight loss. It was for health benefits. The weight loss is just a bonus!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Given your weight, I would guess that you would lose somewhere between 1 and 2 lbs of fat over the 10 days, and possibly some muscle to go with it. A bad diet for ten days probably won't kill you. If it would, more people would die while on vacation. But why mess with it? Just eat at 1200 for ten weeks and you're done.
who are these people that go on vacation and eat 500 calories a day?????????????
If anything I eat MORE on vacation, not less-and so do most people from what I can gather having actually talked to people who go on holiday and the threads that are started here about people gaining whilst on holiday.
Seriously Mr Fish, where the hell do you get some of the 'information' you come out with most of the time?! I see nothing to back up the vague claims!
I was just in Biolixi for two days this past weekend at a casino and I was pretty happy that I stayed under maintenance calories but I still ate about 2400 a day ..
seriously fish, where do you get this stuff???????????0 -
It is worth noting that the 5:2 diet isn't aimed at weight loss. It was for health benefits. The weight loss is just a bonus!
The 5:2 diet IS aimed at weight loss. Go to the website of the guy who created it, and the whole thing is geared towards weight loss and keeping the weight off. Weight loss isn't a bonus; the good health benefits come with being a healthier weight. Lower cholesterol, BP, blood sugar, etc... are all improved by simply losing weight. I've noticed a tendency on 5:2 message boards that people make this claim that 5:2 isn't about weight loss, but that "fasting" is the real key that has magical properties that make you healthy. A.) 5:2 isn't technically a fast anyways, since you still eat. B.) It is no different than people losing weight by a daily deficit, other than a different means of controlling it.
If you don't believe me, check out the website of the guy who started the 5:2 plan.0 -
astralpictures wrote: »It is worth noting that the 5:2 diet isn't aimed at weight loss. It was for health benefits. The weight loss is just a bonus!
The 5:2 diet IS aimed at weight loss. Go to the website of the guy who created it, and the whole thing is geared towards weight loss and keeping the weight off. Weight loss isn't a bonus; the good health benefits come with being a healthier weight. Lower cholesterol, BP, blood sugar, etc... are all improved by simply losing weight. I've noticed a tendency on 5:2 message boards that people make this claim that 5:2 isn't about weight loss, but that "fasting" is the real key that has magical properties that make you healthy. A.) 5:2 isn't technically a fast anyways, since you still eat. B.) It is no different than people losing weight by a daily deficit, other than a different means of controlling it.
If you don't believe me, check out the website of the guy who started the 5:2 plan.
I've read his book and followed the plan. So erm I don't need to thank you. Fasting is first and foremost about the health benefits.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Given your weight, I would guess that you would lose somewhere between 1 and 2 lbs of fat over the 10 days, and possibly some muscle to go with it. A bad diet for ten days probably won't kill you. If it would, more people would die while on vacation. But why mess with it? Just eat at 1200 for ten weeks and you're done.
Regarding the bolded part, for "bad diet," I understood this to mean overeating as that is what people commonly do while on vacation, but others are interpreting it as under-eating. Would you please clarify?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
asflatasapancake wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »It is worth noting that the 5:2 diet isn't aimed at weight loss. It was for health benefits. The weight loss is just a bonus!
The 5:2 diet IS aimed at weight loss. Go to the website of the guy who created it, and the whole thing is geared towards weight loss and keeping the weight off. Weight loss isn't a bonus; the good health benefits come with being a healthier weight. Lower cholesterol, BP, blood sugar, etc... are all improved by simply losing weight. I've noticed a tendency on 5:2 message boards that people make this claim that 5:2 isn't about weight loss, but that "fasting" is the real key that has magical properties that make you healthy. A.) 5:2 isn't technically a fast anyways, since you still eat. B.) It is no different than people losing weight by a daily deficit, other than a different means of controlling it.
If you don't believe me, check out the website of the guy who started the 5:2 plan.
I've read his book and followed the plan. So erm I don't need to thank you. Fasting is first and foremost about the health benefits.
There may be health benefits associated with fasting according to this article:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/expert-answers/fasting-diet/FAQ-20058334
It also says it is not conclusive evidence and more studies need to be done. I'll stick with a healthy diet and regular exercise.
I don't follow 5:2 any more. It was another faddy load of bumpkiss. I was just trying to point out to those who assume that 5:2 is primarily about weight loss. It isn't. I have lost more following CICO than I ever did doing 5;2, Weight Watchers, Stupid VLCD's and god knows what else. Until we educate, we can never learn. Shrug.0 -
I've read his book and followed the plan. So erm I don't need to thank you. Fasting is first and foremost about the health benefits.
You don't need to thank me? Huh? Explain what you consider the health benefits of "fasting" that aren't really the health benefits of becoming a healthy weight. Also explain how the website I linked mentions fat loss as the main goal. Go the FAQs and read.
"As well as offering a fresh approach for people trying to lose weight, IF has been developed by scientists wanting to help people reduce their risk of developing diabetes, dementia and cancer
IF has been most extensively studied in volunteers who are obese or overweight. In a recent study of 115 overweight women, those who restricted their calories two days a week lost more fat and had a greater improvement in biomarkers that relate to breast cancer risk than women doing conventional daily dieting."
Then:
"The benefits in people who are not overweight are less clear because there have been fewer studies."
Seems to me it's a program to help people who are overweight. Again, fasting itself isn't some magical health cure.0 -
astralpictures wrote: »
I've read his book and followed the plan. So erm I don't need to thank you. Fasting is first and foremost about the health benefits.
You don't need to thank me? Huh? Explain what you consider the health benefits of "fasting" that aren't really the health benefits of becoming a healthy weight. Also explain how the website I linked mentions fat loss as the main goal. Go the FAQs and read.
"As well as offering a fresh approach for people trying to lose weight, IF has been developed by scientists wanting to help people reduce their risk of developing diabetes, dementia and cancer
IF has been most extensively studied in volunteers who are obese or overweight. In a recent study of 115 overweight women, those who restricted their calories two days a week lost more fat and had a greater improvement in biomarkers that relate to breast cancer risk than women doing conventional daily dieting."
Then:
"The benefits in people who are not overweight are less clear because there have been fewer studies."
Seems to me it's a program to help people who are overweight. Again, fasting itself isn't some magical health cure.
Or you could just eat at a calorie deficit daily instead of having two days a week where you sugar coat it and make it a shiny shiny fad like all the other "diets" people follow. I didn't lose much weight doing 5:2. But I felt much better health wise. Placebo effect? Possibly. I have wised up since then and no longer follow any plan other than eating less than I burn. End of.0 -
Eating 500 calories a day for 10 days is unlikely to cause any health problems. Most likely you'll just be hungry all the time, lose a lot of water weight, some fat, some muscle. On day 11, you'll likely start gaining the water back quickly. And probably gain back most of the fat over the next month or so.0
-
And you misread my meaning. I don't need to look at his site thank you. Not I don't need to thank you personally.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
kshama2001 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Given your weight, I would guess that you would lose somewhere between 1 and 2 lbs of fat over the 10 days, and possibly some muscle to go with it. A bad diet for ten days probably won't kill you. If it would, more people would die while on vacation. But why mess with it? Just eat at 1200 for ten weeks and you're done.
Regarding the bolded part, for "bad diet," I understood this to mean overeating as that is what people commonly do while on vacation, but others are interpreting it as under-eating. Would you please clarify?
I assume he meant overeating too, but if so I don't see the relevance. Why would overeating for a week or two kill you?
Maybe he assumes that on vacation you eat nutrient free and that's the same, but it's not the same and not true anyway. My last vacation was in Hawaii and I ate lots of delicious food, much of which was quite nutrient-rich. (And I ate lots of calories too, true, but I was also biking a lot.) But even apart from that unless one vacations by basically surviving on booze (which is a weird thing for Tim to assume--are we all on some stereotypical MTV spring break when vacationing?), you are going to be getting food that will sustain you.0 -
A few weeks ago I was extremely sick. I couldn't hold my head up. I barely ate 600 cals daily for several days. Ended up with IV antibiotics and fluid so NO 500 a day is not the least bit healthy.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
asflatasapancake wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »It is worth noting that the 5:2 diet isn't aimed at weight loss. It was for health benefits. The weight loss is just a bonus!
The 5:2 diet IS aimed at weight loss. Go to the website of the guy who created it, and the whole thing is geared towards weight loss and keeping the weight off. Weight loss isn't a bonus; the good health benefits come with being a healthier weight. Lower cholesterol, BP, blood sugar, etc... are all improved by simply losing weight. I've noticed a tendency on 5:2 message boards that people make this claim that 5:2 isn't about weight loss, but that "fasting" is the real key that has magical properties that make you healthy. A.) 5:2 isn't technically a fast anyways, since you still eat. B.) It is no different than people losing weight by a daily deficit, other than a different means of controlling it.
If you don't believe me, check out the website of the guy who started the 5:2 plan.
I've read his book and followed the plan. So erm I don't need to thank you. Fasting is first and foremost about the health benefits.
There may be health benefits associated with fasting according to this article:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/expert-answers/fasting-diet/FAQ-20058334
It also says it is not conclusive evidence and more studies need to be done. I'll stick with a healthy diet and regular exercise.
I don't follow 5:2 any more. It was another faddy load of bumpkiss. I was just trying to point out to those who assume that 5:2 is primarily about weight loss. It isn't. I have lost more following CICO than I ever did doing 5;2, Weight Watchers, Stupid VLCD's and god knows what else. Until we educate, we can never learn. Shrug.
Ok. I was just curious about the 5:2. I would never eat that low of calories in any given day. I remember when I was a moron, ok I'm still a moron, when I was more of a moron starting out, I ate around 1200 calories for 3 days straight. I was entranced by the magic 'You will way "blah" in you at like this for 5 weeks' message. I can tell you, I felt like utter crap. Dizzy, sick, etc. Having said that, I would think that as long as someone is meeting a healthy calorie deficit by the end of the week, they would lose weight. How sustainable that would be and how they would feel along the way would be a concern of mine. For some, it may work. Not this cat.
It was a load of rubbish. I think we are all moronic at points when we see flashing "You too could lose 200lbs simply by taking this pill or following this plan" Humans are fickle creatures for the most part. I'm glad I came here and read how REAL people have lost great amounts of weights by eating normally just at a deficit. It's refreshing and so much easier to live by.0 -
I will say that I don't think eating 500 calories for 10 days would kill you either, but I don't see it as likely to accomplish anything, and it could create some food issues, especially if one already has tendencies that way.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I will say that I don't think eating 500 calories for 10 days would kill you either, but I don't see it as likely to accomplish anything, and it could create some food issues, especially if one already has tendencies that way.
Saying that 500 calories of peanut butter would be pretty nice!0 -
I might tweet Bumbledunk Crumblepatch and see if he did actually do this for 10 days.0
-
I'm fairly certain I would die on this diet. Or someone else would because I'd be past hangry into murderous. I eat 500 calories in 1/3 of a day. And I want more than that...so yeah. No.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions