5/2 Diet
Options
Replies
-
I'm doing 5/2. I don't average 500 CALs on my fast days, more like 700. I workout alot and find that 500 is just too low for me. On non-fast days I have around 1300 cals. YMMV.
Play with the numbers. Everyone is different.
Um no.......
What 5:2 is - 5 days at MAINTENANCE and 2 days at 500. So you aren't technically doing 5:2 at all unless you are about 4'6" tall. Your daily average for the week (assuming 700) is only 1,128 calories.
Here's how you find maintenance: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/0 -
I'm doing 5/2. I don't average 500 CALs on my fast days, more like 700. I workout alot and find that 500 is just too low for me. On non-fast days I have around 1300 cals. YMMV.
Play with the numbers. Everyone is different.
Um no.......
What 5:2 is - 5 days at MAINTENANCE and 2 days at 500. So you aren't technically doing 5:2 at all unless you are about 4'6" tall. Your daily average for the week (assuming 700) is only 1,128 calories.
Here's how you find maintenance: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
There's some debate about what to do with the 5 non-fasting days. Many people do eat slightly under their maintenance calories on those days, to make up part of the deficit. Dr. Mosley is pretty vague for this part, which has led to some frustration in the 5:2 community.
For me, I'm doing a modified 5:2 plan. I figured out my TDEE/light exercise x7 days-3,500 calories (1lb a week), -700 calories x2 (my 2 fasting days), and then with the leftover calories I divide by 5 days to get my non-fasting number. This gives me 1,618 calories on those days, compared to my TDEE of 1,856. All this works out to an average of 1,355 calories a day
0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »I'm doing 5/2. I don't average 500 CALs on my fast days, more like 700. I workout alot and find that 500 is just too low for me. On non-fast days I have around 1300 cals. YMMV.
Play with the numbers. Everyone is different.
Um no.......
What 5:2 is - 5 days at MAINTENANCE and 2 days at 500. So you aren't technically doing 5:2 at all unless you are about 4'6" tall. Your daily average for the week (assuming 700) is only 1,128 calories.
Here's how you find maintenance: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
There's some debate about what to do with the 5 non-fasting days. Many people do eat slightly under their maintenance calories on those days, to make up part of the deficit. Dr. Mosley is pretty vague for this part, which has led to some frustration in the 5:2 community.
For me, I'm doing a modified 5:2 plan. I figured out my TDEE/light exercise x7 days-3,500 calories (1lb a week), -700 calories x2 (my 2 fasting days), and then with the leftover calories I divide by 5 days to get my non-fasting number. This gives me 1,618 calories on those days, compared to my TDEE of 1,856. All this works out to an average of 1,355 calories a day
^^thank you!0 -
I did it and it worked really well for me also. Currently I'm at maintenance, so no longer fasting, but at the time I was eating 2000/500 cals. Essentially skipped breakfast and had light lunch and dinner.2
-
Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.3 -
I know someone who does it, however, let's be frank.... You are starving yourself 2 days a week.0
-
Except your body doesn't view it that way for that brief period of time, and the fact you are still eating something.
Takes 48-72 hrs for body to get so concerned with no food it starts to do negative things.
Studies have actually shown increase it metabolic rate in first 24 hrs - that doesn't happen with a concerned starving body.0 -
Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
1 -
I think that if it helps you break the habit of eating because "it's time" vs actual hunger, go for it. You can still overeat with any fasting plan, so make sure you are using it as an opportunity to listen to your body. You may feel weird at first - headaches, but your body gets used to the timing.0
-
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
The thing about some fasting protocols is that calorie restriction on your "up" days shouldn't be the focus. Personally, I have to eat well above my TDEE or else the weight flies off way too fast, and there is some strength loss. Again, I believe fasting should be a lifestyle change,with weight loss being a biproduct of your choices. If you feel like you can stick to fasting while using calorie restriction and you see no adverse affects, then by all means go ahead. But with the hormonal changes that come with fasting, calorie restriction does not have to be a necessity to lose fat, and may slow your metabolism (as shown with calorie restrictive diets over 6 weeks in length)
0 -
JessicaNotGivingUp wrote: »I know someone who does it, however, let's be frank.... You are starving yourself 2 days a week.
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/08/06/a-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting/0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
The thing about some fasting protocols is that calorie restriction on your "up" days shouldn't be the focus. Personally, I have to eat well above my TDEE or else the weight flies off way too fast, and there is some strength loss. Again, I believe fasting should be a lifestyle change,with weight loss being a biproduct of your choices. If you feel like you can stick to fasting while using calorie restriction and you see no adverse affects, then by all means go ahead. But with the hormonal changes that come with fasting, calorie restriction does not have to be a necessity to lose fat, and may slow your metabolism (as shown with calorie restrictive diets over 6 weeks in length)
I've been using IF in one form or another for several years now only to lose weight/maintain weight. I don't really think of it as a lifestyle, but more as a tool that I use to create the correct calorie deficit/balance for my goals. I've been using 16:8IF as part of my maintenance plan for around 3 years now, and I've decided to do a short weight loss phase again, to lose 5ish pounds of summer 'vanity' pounds. I ran my info to figure out my TDEE and then plugged that into the 5:2 format, because I've found for me, it's easier to stick to my calorie deficit with very low calorie days mixed in with higher calorie days, vs lower calorie days 7 days a week. But, I still need to create the correct deficit for my goals. Doing 5:2 Dr. Mosley's way would put my daily average calories at 1,571 a day vs the 1,356 daily average calories I need to lose 1lb a week. My TDEE is 1,856 so I'd lose on Dr. Mosley's numbers, but at a slower pace. Since I can fit in a 1lb deficit a week and still have a sensible amount of calories, I don't see a reason not to go this route.
Sorry OP, we've kind of hijacked your thread
0 -
I used to fast one day a week - it really helped with maintenance and I was feeling great after the fasting days 0
-
Tydeclare44 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
The thing about some fasting protocols is that calorie restriction on your "up" days shouldn't be the focus. Personally, I have to eat well above my TDEE or else the weight flies off way too fast, and there is some strength loss. Again, I believe fasting should be a lifestyle change,with weight loss being a biproduct of your choices. If you feel like you can stick to fasting while using calorie restriction and you see no adverse affects, then by all means go ahead. But with the hormonal changes that come with fasting, calorie restriction does not have to be a necessity to lose fat, and may slow your metabolism (as shown with calorie restrictive diets over 6 weeks in length)
I personally disagree. I see fasting as a tool rather than a lifestyle, a tool I could use both in weight loss and in maintenance. A very helpful tool. Have a party coming up? No problem, I'll just fast on 500 calories for a day or two and not worry too much about my intake come party day, effectively maintaining my weight instead of gaining. Have a bad appetite week? No problem, I'll just tough it up and fast for a couple of days then not worry too much about my appetite ruining my loss... etc.
Pardon my reading comprehension, but are you advising to eat at maintenance on "up" days? Because that's exactly what people are advising. I don't believe 5:2 has a steep deficit in any way. Say your maintenance is 3000, and you eat 750 calories twice a week effectively creating a deficit of 4500 calories in said week. That's a loss of about 1 1/4 pounds a week, which couldn't be classified as extreme by any stretch of imagination.0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »I'm doing 5/2. I don't average 500 CALs on my fast days, more like 700. I workout alot and find that 500 is just too low for me. On non-fast days I have around 1300 cals. YMMV.
Play with the numbers. Everyone is different.
Um no.......
What 5:2 is - 5 days at MAINTENANCE and 2 days at 500. So you aren't technically doing 5:2 at all unless you are about 4'6" tall. Your daily average for the week (assuming 700) is only 1,128 calories.
Here's how you find maintenance: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
There's some debate about what to do with the 5 non-fasting days. Many people do eat slightly under their maintenance calories on those days, to make up part of the deficit. Dr. Mosley is pretty vague for this part, which has led to some frustration in the 5:2 community.
For me, I'm doing a modified 5:2 plan. I figured out my TDEE/light exercise x7 days-3,500 calories (1lb a week), -700 calories x2 (my 2 fasting days), and then with the leftover calories I divide by 5 days to get my non-fasting number. This gives me 1,618 calories on those days, compared to my TDEE of 1,856. All this works out to an average of 1,355 calories a day
You're right. I don't do 5:2, and I don't call what I do 5:2. I simply zig-zag my calories. My average daily calories aren't that big either (over 50).
BUT, like you I figured out my TDEE and am not using 5:2 as an excuse to eat a 1300 calorie diet PLUS two 700 calorie days. For someone "who works out a lot" this sounds more like a diet + two 700 calorie days, than it does 5:2.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Pardon my reading comprehension, but are you advising to eat at maintenance on "up" days? Because that's exactly what people are advising. I don't believe 5:2 has a steep deficit in any way. Say your maintenance is 3000, and you eat 750 calories twice a week effectively creating a deficit of 4500 calories in said week. That's a loss of about 1 1/4 pounds a week, which couldn't be classified as extreme by any stretch of imagination.
I am not trying to advising anything really. I'm trying to convey they freedom that IF can give. If using 5:2 with a deficit works for you, then by all means do that. If you find something that works for your goals, then do that.
To undersand my perspective, I do 16:8 and eat to a maitenence every day. Yet, I have lost 32 pounds over 3 months, while retaining almost all my mucsle, and going to the gym a few times a week to stimulate my muscles. This is why I do not think it is entirely necessary to obsess over calorie counting whilst fasting is a part of your life.
0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
Pardon my reading comprehension, but are you advising to eat at maintenance on "up" days? Because that's exactly what people are advising. I don't believe 5:2 has a steep deficit in any way. Say your maintenance is 3000, and you eat 750 calories twice a week effectively creating a deficit of 4500 calories in said week. That's a loss of about 1 1/4 pounds a week, which couldn't be classified as extreme by any stretch of imagination.
I am not trying to advising anything really. I'm trying to convey they freedom that IF can give. If using 5:2 with a deficit works for you, then by all means do that. If you find something that works for your goals, then do that.
To undersand my perspective, I do 16:8 and eat to a maitenence every day. Yet, I have lost 32 pounds over 3 months, while retaining almost all my mucsle, and going to the gym a few times a week to stimulate my muscles. This is why I do not think it is entirely necessary to obsess over calorie counting whilst fasting is a part of your life.
You can't eat at maintenance every day and still lose weight.. for weight to be lost, you need to create a deficit. I think I'm still not understanding something. Eating at maintenance by definition means you aren't going to lose or gain any weight. I think you mean that you are losing weight eating until full without counting calories right? This works for some people but not others.0 -
I would die on 500 cals and probably eat my shoes. 1
-
kimdawnhayden wrote: »I would die on 500 cals and probably eat my shoes.
That was actually one of biggest lesson I learned doing my own variation of this diet. Hunger is not the end of the world, and I can actually go without much food longer than I expected. What was more amazing is that after a couple of weeks fast days became quite easy. It took me by surprise.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
You can't eat at maintenance every day and still lose weight.. for weight to be lost, you need to create a deficit. I think I'm still not understanding something. Eating at maintenance by definition means you aren't going to lose or gain any weight. I think you mean that you are losing weight eating until full without counting calories right? This works for some people but not others.
I understand that perspective. But recently mine has changed becasue of IF. Let me explain to the best of my abilities.
My TDEE is ~2600 calories for a 208 pound, 5'9 male.
Everyday I eat at least 2600 calories. It isn't easy but I get it done. Do I obess over calories and count every single one? No. But I've done this whole MFP thing for a while and have a fairly good grasp on how many cals are in food.
If the next point you have is that I must be overestimating calories, and am actually eating at a deficit, then I guess I can't dispute that.
I think the point that we are differing on a bit is the term of weight loss. For pure weight loss (muscle, fat and water), then simply counting CICO is a solid equation. But WEIGHT loss isn't my goal; fat loss is. CICO doesn't calcualte metabolism effects and digestion efficiency very well. That's where I feel the difference comes in with IF. The increase in HGH and increased insulin sensitivity seem to retain the muscle, and ensure the nutriens I eat are being used as efficiently as possible. At the same time, while fasting, the body turns to fats as it's source of energy, which can be measured by ketostix (not the best method, but probably the most cost effective).
This article breaks it down very well: http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/08/06/a-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting/
TL;DR: there is more going on than simply CICO
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions