Anyone tried the 'Eat Every Other Day' diet?
Options
Replies
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »
5:2 is similar and a lot of people respond well to this way of eating...it doesn't mess up your metabolism. If you respond to this way of eating it's not headed to failure. There's nothing dangerous about it...you eat to maintenance on non fasting days and lower calorie on "fasted" days...usually somewhere between 500 - 1000 calories give or take and depending on what kind of deficit you are targeting.
So for me, if I was eating 3000 calories on my maintenance days and 1000 calories 2 days per week on my "fasted" days...essentially I have a 4,000 calorie deficit for the week...a little more than 1 Lb per week...so how would that be dangerous.
Not the same thing.
Quoted OP "basically you stick to your calorie goal on one day, and then the next day you eat below 500 calories, or some people don't eat at all. Then the next day you're back to your normal calorie goal, then repeat."
---
I am also following a form of fasting but I correspond the fasting and what not to level of activities. Not blind fasting.
I would translate "normal calorie goal" to be maintenance...calories on fasted days would be dependent on one's desired deficit.
Also, I wouldn't call it blind fasted...learning to perform in a fasted state is actually a training protocol in many programs.
Personally, if I were to do it I'd just schedule lighter workouts on fasted days...pretty easy....1 -
Wickglamgirl wrote: »If you want to do something that "kick starts" you - eat nothing but fresh, flash frozen, unprocessed foods. Fresh fruits and veggies and lean cuts of meat/poultry. I like to have a lot of fish - I notice the weeks that I have a lot of fish - at least 3 times a week are the weeks that I lose more. Shop the perimeter of the grocery store. I could never NOT eat - that's why I'm here!
Just about none of the above is necessary. There's nothing wrong with "unprocessed" foods per se, but people can lose weight with a mix of "processed" or convenience foods just fine. If you like fish and it meets your needs, that's great. There's nothing "necessary" about fish, however.
I really wish that "shop the perimeter" nonsense idea would die the death it deserves. My grocery store has cake, pie, beer, cheese, wine, sausages, and bacon on the perimeter. I'd be avoiding so much that's good and useful to me by not venturing into the aisles.
As for the OP's post, IF type plans are perfectly safe and effective when they're structured appropriately. Having a few days/week at maintenance and keeping the deficit within 2-3 days of the week is just another method of building a sustainable deficit. Some people just find it works better with their day-to-day routine.6 -
Wickglamgirl wrote: »If you want to do something that "kick starts" you - eat nothing but fresh, flash frozen, unprocessed foods. Fresh fruits and veggies and lean cuts of meat/poultry. I like to have a lot of fish - I notice the weeks that I have a lot of fish - at least 3 times a week are the weeks that I lose more. Shop the perimeter of the grocery store. I could never NOT eat - that's why I'm here!
This is not necessary and not a sustainable way to eat for everyone. I'm not arguing that fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins are good staples in our diets - I think it's great to incorporate them into our diets, and vegetables are a great way to add volume without adding a ton of calories. But it is not necessary to eat this way all the time, for every meal, and can cause people to burn out. I always recommend a balanced diet that includes a wide variety of foods that will be sustainable long term.
Also, this:Shop the perimeter of the grocery store.
is just not very good advice. My grocery store contains the bakery and the beer section on the perimeter aisles. Also, things like rice, oats, quinoa, canned beans, and other perfectly fine foods are located more towards the center. There is nothing wrong with "processed" foods.2 -
amyrebeccah wrote: »This is also called Intermittent fasting, but usually people eat at maintenance on non-fasting days.
This^
5:2 or 4:3 is eating at maintenance on "off" days. Then your "fast" or "on" days are 500 calories for women, and 600 calories for men.
Drastic calorie deficits make it harder for your body to support existing lean muscle mass. Aggressive weight loss doesn't lower your body fat % by as much as moderate paced weight loss does.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/100058-5-2-fasting
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/8628-5-2-diet
I tried 5:2 the 500 calorie days didn't work for me. But I do I zig zag my calories to allow me to eat at maintenance on the weekends.
No need to "kick start" weight loss. Just pick something you can be consistent with & that helps you develop good habits you can use during maintenance.1 -
I don't do anything as extreme as this, but I eat 1200cal net most days and then eat maintenance or over on 2-3 days, averaging about 1500cal net over the week. This works much better for me than a steady deficit. It's quite an individual thing I think.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »
5:2 is similar and a lot of people respond well to this way of eating...it doesn't mess up your metabolism. If you respond to this way of eating it's not headed to failure. There's nothing dangerous about it...you eat to maintenance on non fasting days and lower calorie on "fasted" days...usually somewhere between 500 - 1000 calories give or take and depending on what kind of deficit you are targeting.
So for me, if I was eating 3000 calories on my maintenance days and 1000 calories 2 days per week on my "fasted" days...essentially I have a 4,000 calorie deficit for the week...a little more than 1 Lb per week...so how would that be dangerous.
Not the same thing.
Quoted OP "basically you stick to your calorie goal on one day, and then the next day you eat below 500 calories, or some people don't eat at all. Then the next day you're back to your normal calorie goal, then repeat."
---
I am also following a form of fasting but I correspond the fasting and what not to level of activities. Not blind fasting.
I would translate "normal calorie goal" to be maintenance...calories on fasted days would be dependent on one's desired deficit.
Also, I wouldn't call it blind fasted...learning to perform in a fasted state is actually a training protocol in many programs.
Personally, if I were to do it I'd just schedule lighter workouts on fasted days...pretty easy....
Agree with all of this, except I thought OP was saying a normal deficit on some days, 500 on others and never doing maintenance. Thus, a "kick start." But who knows -- OP would have to answer.0 -
I don't have a metabolism. Most days I don't even wanna eat over 500 calories. When I'm traveling for work it's a hassle trying to not go over in one meal. I like the idea of IF. I'm going to do my own research.0
-
I had 30lbs to lose and lost 24 of those in 4mths doing ADF. I had no problems with it, and it didnt ruin my metabolism or cause me to binge on my up days. These books helped me through.
5 -
No I haven't tried that diet. I also haven't tried the diet where you hire someone to kick you in the balls anytime you pick up a donut. I typically just try to moderate my intake while increasing my activity level.2
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »No I haven't tried that diet. I also haven't tried the diet where you hire someone to kick you in the balls anytime you pick up a donut. I typically just try to moderate my intake while increasing my activity level.
LOL. Read like a very effective warning to guys. I only went with "dangerous" just to be inclusive.
But I agree with the sentiment.
0 -
No, it is a ridiculous plan IMO.0
-
The main draw for me was it was easier to diet every other day then 7 days a week! The fasting days were freeing for me, as i didn't have to think about what and when to eat, it was just my 500 calorie dinner and done and dusted.6
-
No, it is a ridiculous plan IMO.
I'm not even clear exactly what the plan is - are you?
The OP needs to respond to clarify what exactly she is doing, it's very vague as presented.
If it's the Krista Varady ADF diet then it's not even supposed to be calorie counting on the high days - it's ad lib eating which would commonly be somewhat over maintenance but not enough to cancel out the fasting days where only c. 25% of TDEE is consumed.
When I did 5:2 I was concerned that people focussed only on the 2 fast days and didn't actually follow the 5 day normal eating part and restricted those days too. That's a people problem not a program problem.
A bit like the many people on here who follow every day calorie restriction routines but restrict too much.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I had 30lbs to lose and lost 24 of those in 4mths doing ADF. I had no problems with it, and it didnt ruin my metabolism or cause me to binge on my up days. These books helped me through.
All 3 are great books, they were the blueprint for what I did for my initial weight loss phase
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions