Is 5 2 just a fad?

Options
1…1213151718…21

Replies

  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,365 Member
    Options
    How can not eating for two days be healty? All of your vital organs, especially your brain and heart need consistant nourishment to functioin properly. Give me break.

    "Consistant" nourishment?? Complete and utter nonsense.

    Spiritual fasting for periods of days/weeks has been practiced by various groups for centuries, there are also individuals who choose to go on lengthy "hunger strikes" as a form of public protest.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    How can not eating for two days be healty? All of your vital organs, especially your brain and heart need consistant nourishment to functioin properly. Give me break.

    "Consistant" nourishment?? Complete and utter nonsense.

    Spiritual fasting for periods of days/weeks has been practiced by various groups for centuries, there are also individuals who choose to go on lengthy "hunger strikes" as a form of public protest.

    and the whole point of those strikes is that they AREN'T healthy. lol
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    It is not a fad, Dr Michael Mosely has been doing it for over 10 years, and it was he who made the TV programme that triggered the recent interest

    What's your point? Lots of "fads" have been around for years - look at the cabbage soup diet that keeps coming around in different variations but basically the same thing.

    I'm not interested because I don't think it's something I can maintain, but if you think it's something that will work for you then go for it.

    People misuse the word a lot, but "fad" by definition is temporary, usually it refers to temporary popularity.

    The cabbage soup diet is not a fad, because it has stood the test of time.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Options
    It is not a fad, Dr Michael Mosely has been doing it for over 10 years, and it was he who made the TV programme that triggered the recent interest

    What's your point? Lots of "fads" have been around for years - look at the cabbage soup diet that keeps coming around in different variations but basically the same thing.

    I'm not interested because I don't think it's something I can maintain, but if you think it's something that will work for you then go for it.

    People misuse the word a lot, but "fad" by definition is temporary, usually it refers to temporary popularity.

    The cabbage soup diet is not a fad, because it has stood the test of time.

    The cabbage soup diet was a fad, I was around then and it was THE thing to do at the time. Some people still do it but you don't see headlines in the magazines about the wonder diet of cabbage soup anymore. Just like the mini skirt, platform shoes and tie dye. It never goes away completely but you don't see it on all the news stands anymore hence temporary popularity.
  • jetlag
    jetlag Posts: 800 Member
    Options
    Wrong! A fad would denote that it's popularity fades. 5:2 popularity is increasing like wildfire!
    You can not call it a fad until it fades in popularity. Examples of fad diets are: Atkins diet, cabbage soup diet, and tapeworm diet. They got some notoriety and now they are footnotes. By definition you guys calling it that is incorrect. It is possible in the future this might be true, but it is not so now. I suppose you are looking into your crystal balls when you say that, so please tell us what stock to buy so that we may benefit from your prognostications, oh great clairvoyant ones! :tongue:
    Oo

    and, as with all things in fitness, while popularity of a particular diet may "increase like wildfire", it too will fade as some other BRAND NEW WEIGHTLOSS TRICK comes out.

    'tis the way this all works.

    It's not a "trick", it's just different.

    With the number of insufferable know-it-alls on this forum, I'm not surprised so many of them can also predict the future.
  • LibertyChamp
    LibertyChamp Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    Wrong! A fad would denote that it's popularity fades. 5:2 popularity is increasing like wildfire!
    You can not call it a fad until it fades in popularity. Examples of fad diets are: Atkins diet, cabbage soup diet, and tapeworm diet. They got some notoriety and now they are footnotes. By definition you guys calling it that is incorrect. It is possible in the future this might be true, but it is not so now. I suppose you are looking into your crystal balls when you say that, so please tell us what stock to buy so that we may benefit from your prognostications, oh great clairvoyant ones! :tongue:
    Oo

    and, as with all things in fitness, while popularity of a particular diet may "increase like wildfire", it too will fade as some other BRAND NEW WEIGHTLOSS TRICK comes out.

    'tis the way this all works.

    It's not a "trick", it's just different.

    With the number of insufferable know-it-alls on this forum, I'm not surprised so many of them can also predict the future.

    I agree, and would add that these forums are supposed to be for support in actively engaging to create healthier living. These all seeing, all knowing skeptics simply support people in INACTION for those that might be considering giving 5:2 a try. The opposite of what these forums are meant for. On behalf of those that seek healthier lifestyles, thank you for your deleterious support!
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    Wrong! A fad would denote that it's popularity fades. 5:2 popularity is increasing like wildfire!
    You can not call it a fad until it fades in popularity. Examples of fad diets are: Atkins diet, cabbage soup diet, and tapeworm diet. They got some notoriety and now they are footnotes. By definition you guys calling it that is incorrect. It is possible in the future this might be true, but it is not so now. I suppose you are looking into your crystal balls when you say that, so please tell us what stock to buy so that we may benefit from your prognostications, oh great clairvoyant ones! :tongue:
    Oo

    and, as with all things in fitness, while popularity of a particular diet may "increase like wildfire", it too will fade as some other BRAND NEW WEIGHTLOSS TRICK comes out.

    'tis the way this all works.

    It's not a "trick", it's just different.

    With the number of insufferable know-it-alls on this forum, I'm not surprised so many of them can also predict the future.

    I agree, and would add that these forums are supposed to be for support in actively engaging to create healthier living. These all seeing, all knowing skeptics simply support people in INACTION for those that might be considering giving 5:2 a try. The opposite of what these forums are meant for. On behalf of those that seek healthier lifestyles, thank you for your deleterious support!

    there's nothing wrong with giving it a try, and I'm not for or against it inherently, but that doesn't mean it isn't a fad. I subscribe to a primal way of eating much of the time, and I'd call that a fad too, becuase while popular now, I recognize that may change in the future as new information becomes available.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    It is not a fad, Dr Michael Mosely has been doing it for over 10 years, and it was he who made the TV programme that triggered the recent interest

    Ir is not a diet plan, it is aimed at health, weight loss is a by product

    There are 5.2 groups on here, have a search & take your pick

    How can not eating for two days be healty? All of your vital organs, especially your brain and heart need consistant nourishment to functioin properly. Give me break.
    Huh? You do know the human body is perfectly capable of storing nourishment between meals, don't you? Man, if the human body needed "consistant" (was that supposed to be consistent or constant?) nourishment we as a species would've died out a couple million years ago. There is absolutely nothing unhealthy about a 24-48 hour fasting period, provided adequate nutrition is taken in during non-fasting periods.

    TL;DR
    Eat 2000 calories every day, or eat 4000 calories every other day, is exactly the same thing to the human body.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Options
    Beyond whether this way of eating is a fad or not is still whether it's a healthy way to eat, whether it provides any documented health benefits or if it's just another way to derive a caloric deficit by rearranging calories on a weekly basis instead of a daily basis.

    The fact that you do something and it works for you or makes you feel great or gives you the chance to not work and march the streets 4 hours a day is beside the point. That's great for you, carry on with it but don't make wild claims about how it's super healthy because cavemen didn't eat for days or religious factions practiced fasting for thousands of years. Just because something has happened for a long time doesn't mean it's healthy or has a benefit.

    The other thing I get hung up on is calling is fasting when you are in fact eating. What it really is if done as I understand it is that you eat a VLCD for 2 days and your TDEE (or more) for 5 days. That is not fasting. Fasting would be eating nothing on those 2 days. It's purely calorie manipulation.
  • JUDDDing
    JUDDDing Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    The other thing I get hung up on is calling is fasting when you are in fact eating. What it really is if done as I understand it is that you eat a VLCD for 2 days and your TDEE (or more) for 5 days. That is not fasting. Fasting would be eating nothing on those 2 days. It's purely calorie manipulation.

    The studies call it "modified fasting" it's not a 5;2 thing or something we came up with on MFP.

    This (eating a bit during a fast) wasn't actually originally a 5:2 idea (really, as was shown in the video - all of the 5:2 is derivitive from other studies) - It had been suggested as a way to make fasting more sustainable during previous studies (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69.full)

    So, I don't disagree with you on the terminology - but It's not a 5:2 issue. That's what the scientists call it in their studies.
  • missems1
    missems1 Posts: 38 Member
    Options
    Oh goody this one is still going! Like I said before 5:2 may well be a fad, but its one that totally suits me.I find it be compatible to my lifestyle and weirdly look forward to my fast days. I reached my goal weight in Feb and just carried on. I personally find it to be the easiest way to maintain where I want to be at weight wise. I suppose time will tell on the fad front :wink:
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    It is not a fad, Dr Michael Mosely has been doing it for over 10 years, and it was he who made the TV programme that triggered the recent interest

    What's your point? Lots of "fads" have been around for years - look at the cabbage soup diet that keeps coming around in different variations but basically the same thing.

    I'm not interested because I don't think it's something I can maintain, but if you think it's something that will work for you then go for it.

    People misuse the word a lot, but "fad" by definition is temporary, usually it refers to temporary popularity.

    The cabbage soup diet is not a fad, because it has stood the test of time.

    The cabbage soup diet was a fad, I was around then and it was THE thing to do at the time. Some people still do it but you don't see headlines in the magazines about the wonder diet of cabbage soup anymore. Just like the mini skirt, platform shoes and tie dye. It never goes away completely but you don't see it on all the news stands anymore hence temporary popularity.

    You don't see headlines for much of anything that isn't new. Atkin's is still around but you rarely see headlines for it anymore.

    Actually, I can't remember seeing headlines about the cabbage soup diet (I was around then too). It was in diet magazines or word of mouth. It's on MFP all the time and still going strong. Stupid diet =/= fad diet.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Oh goody this one is still going! Like I said before 5:2 may well be a fad, but its one that totally suits me.I find it be compatible to my lifestyle and weirdly look forward to my fast days. I reached my goal weight in Feb and just carried on. I personally find it to be the easiest way to maintain where I want to be at weight wise. I suppose time will tell on the fad front :wink:

    One of my MFP friends recently started 5:2 and broke a plateau.
  • casamolina
    casamolina Posts: 1
    Options
    We are so accustomed to believing that 'not eating' is unhealthy. I'm fairly confident the cavemen were hungry a lot of the time and went through periods of feast and famine. This is the human condition - this is how our bodies work. We are not made to have a plethora of food coming at us 24x7. We were meant to hunt and forage for food and then store it for the lean times. Our bodies are made to do this – and they do it very effectively. Sheesh, some people will have you believing that if they don't eat for an hour they are going to die of starvation.

    BTW, on the fast days you DO eat. It's just that your calories are restricted.
  • jardin12
    jardin12 Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    Just want to say what is it with sisters and this diet - mine too! Won't shut up about it. I prefer healthy daily balance - reach goal weight and you will be healthy no matter how you get there. Just get there! And personally if someone has lost 121pounds....well I'm listening to them!!
  • pinkraynedropjacki
    pinkraynedropjacki Posts: 3,027 Member
    Options
    Shhh...don't tell me I started in 2011.... I was here for a while but didn't do anything till Feb 2012 :grumble: I got my kick in the *kitten* then, for some reason though it took 3 months???:embarassed:

    Pinkraynedrop, your weight loss is pretty amazing and inspiring. Do you have any before and after pics? You have lost just about the equivalent of my wife's weight, amazing! I know you don't pay attention to the meanies and the cynics.

    Actually have one from the day I started Feb 8th 2012....95kg but I dont have a full body shot of me now...not yet. I have one from when I reached goal 7 months later though :) I'm now almost 10kg lighter than the last photo.

    Feb 8th 2012, 95kg 2012-02-05155048.jpg

    this was 1kg under my goal weight and that was 65kg. It was about start of Sept 2012 that I got there. No idea of the exact date.
    944kggoalweight_zpse7bfe064.jpg
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Options
    Who knows? It has been around a while and some people find it helpful.

    We do know from studies that meal timing doesn't matter, so it falls within the fine to do, but very likely not helpful beyond helping with individual adherence category, just like any IF strategy or 6 meals a day.

    So, if it works for you, that's great, go with it. Just don't think that it's a magical solution.
  • MsPudding
    MsPudding Posts: 562 Member
    Options
    How can not eating for two days be healty? All of your vital organs, especially your brain and heart need consistant nourishment to functioin properly. Give me break.


    Of course you're 100%, absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt right. The fact that absolutely everyone walks round with feeding tubes down their throat all day to ensure they're getting consistent nourishment is surely testament to your point.

    Oh wait...
  • WhoHa42
    WhoHa42 Posts: 1,270 Member
    Options
    It is unnecessary, but it will work because of the calorie restriction. I feel like you would be better off with just lowering your calories a little bit for everyday than doing that.
  • MsPudding
    MsPudding Posts: 562 Member
    Options
    It is unnecessary, but it will work because of the calorie restriction. I feel like you would be better off with just lowering your calories a little bit for everyday than doing that.


    .....and if restricting on 2 days works better with someone's lifestyle? If someone simply prefers restricting on 2 days a week?

    Clearly that sort of person wouldn't be 'better off' lowering their calories 7 days a week because it wouldn't suit their lifestyle or their preferences and therefore they're far less likely to adhere to it long enough to get the desired weight loss.

Categories