Is 5 2 just a fad?

DatMurse

Why can't people sustain it? Clearly some people have....

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

its a fad diet that is not sustainable for the average person

Why is that?

If you follow the instructions to the dot, you find that your weekly deficit is exactly the same as the one marked by MFP. The only difference is that instead of choosing to create a deficit 7 days a week, you choose to do it on 2 days.

Those 2 days? I call them "salad days" to my RL friends who I'm too lazy to explain this. I basically eat salads with LF dressing and egg white omelette by dinner. I'm not starving. But this way, if I go out to lunch with my friends (as today), I won't have to worry too much about eating out and the secret oil and eating salads every single day. When you travel so much, and you have so much time to explore different countries and cultures.. well.. this way of deficit works much better!

Probably it'd be differnet if I stayed at home all day (as for me, being busy helps a lot).

Overall, I've lost around 5 - 6 kilos in one month and a half (I exercise though) and I still enjoy eating out.

So yeah.. truly it is a fad.. Just like MFP method I guess.

yea because MFP restricts 2 days out of the week for you.

The average person's lifestyle does not function like that. Most people cant sustain a diet such as that. You just started the diet and you only been on it for a month.

My point exactly. You have no room to talk about why its sustainable.

I am a very average person.

I did this for a year (though I don't call it 5:2, I call it IF or Eat Stop Eat). I stopped when I got pregnant. When I finish breastfeeding, I intend to start up again.

Why does it work for me? Because I like to go out to dinner and splurge from time to time. I enjoy a beer after work with my work buddies. I don't like having to stick to 1500 calories per day. Most average people probably would find it hard to stick to 1500 calories per day for years to lose weight. Having a fast day just means you can have a deficit on 2 days a week instead of 7. I think it's way more sustainable than just calorie counting personally.

and you still arent near your target weight.

I dont think 90%+ of people would enjoy this lifestyle.

You have to start this lifestyle in order to lose weight and is not sustainable for yourself. You are proof yourself

I just had a baby - I gained weight when I was pregnant because that's what happens when you are pregnant - I am losing weight again now that I've had the baby. I've actually lost a total of about 160lbs - so your point is moot.

I lost weight when I was fasting and I would happily sustain it as a permanent solution. I just can't do it right now as I need to sustain a second life and can't CR.

people do not need to gain 14kg after being pregnant. JS

Firstly - that is a ridiculously rude thing to say. Average weight gain is between 12-20kg (healthy weight gain is about 12.5kg) for a woman when she falls pregnant. I haven't gotten on the scales since I gave birth and have no plans to until I establish a healthy milk supply -

Milk supply is granted regardless of caloric intake.

Average weight gain is not always ideal. Btw they want the average person to gain about 25-35 lbs during pregnancy, Obviously your dieting lifestyle cannot carry over to pregnancy.
BTW Healthy weight gain is not 44 lbs

What is rude? I am just stating facts. Your sustainability on the diet during pregnancy is incapable.

Everyone wants to cry out when a pregnant woman gains weight and blames it on XYZ, hormones, or person is being rude.

tigersword

I don't understand how you could possibly not consider this hypocaloric. You eat maintenance 5 days per week, and then 500 calories for 2 days (roughly about a 1500-2000 calorie deficit per day.) That leads to a deficit of 3000-4000 per week. That is very much hypocaloric.

I believe, in common usage, "hypocaloric" refers to a diet that is below 1000-1200 calories a day.

I've seen this term used in several studies - and the daily calories on those is usually < 800/day.

A deficit of 3000-4000 calories is hardly starvation and is well aligned with ubiquitous recommendations ("lose 1 to 2 lbs a week (3500-7000 cals a week deficit).

Example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17327740

We define hypocaloric feeding as the delivery of 0.5-0.9 times the resting energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding as 1.1-1.3 times the resting energy expenditure, whereas hypercaloric feeding delivers more than 1.5 times the resting energy expenditure.

ETA: But sure, any "diet" is "hypocaloric" in a thermodynamic perspective - even if you are just working out - if you are losing weight than you are eating fewer calories than you "need".

Your quote defines hypocaloric as 0.5-0.9 times REE, so if REE is 2000 calories, then 1800 would be considered hypocaloric. That completely goes against your original claim of it being <1000 calories, and is actually in line with the definition I used.

In other words, thanks for proving me right. :drinker:

JUDDDing

Your quote defines hypocaloric as 0.5-0.9 times REE, so if REE is 2000 calories, then 1800 would be considered hypocaloric. That completely goes against your original claim of it being <1000 calories, and is actually in line with the definition I used.

In other words, thanks for proving me right. :drinker:

I'm here for you. :bigsmile:

It's a range. And 0.9 REE is probably at BMR for most people. But fine.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/hypocaloric

characterized by a low number of dietary calories <hypocaloric diets, usually 1,000–1,200 kcal/day—Julie L. Sharpless>

(Edited - hit the wrong button.)

But yeah - any diet that provides fewer calories than is needed to maintain body weight is technically hypocaloric.

Qskim

Your quote defines hypocaloric as 0.5-0.9 times REE, so if REE is 2000 calories, then 1800 would be considered hypocaloric. That completely goes against your original claim of it being <1000 calories, and is actually in line with the definition I used.

In other words, thanks for proving me right. :drinker:

I'm here for you. :bigsmile:

It's a range. And 0.9 REE is probably at BMR for most people. But fine.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/hypocaloric

characterized by a low number of dietary calories <hypocaloric diets, usually 1,000–1,200 kcal/day—Julie L. Sharpless>

(Edited - hit the wrong button.)

But yeah - any diet that provides fewer calories than is needed to maintain body weight is technically hypocaloric.

TW...Juddding's edit is what I should have added too because I had indeed as Juddding assumed continuously seen hypocaloric diets in studies as being at the lower end of the REE scale..then couple that with most people assuming that fasting equates with starvation well, lol, I saw red and the old knee kicked in. It's also why I defined my understanding of it even though technically it's incorrect and means a broader range of deficit as Juddding and yourself points out. Yeh my screw up ...not yours or Juddding whose clarification I took as a subtle correction of me (quite rightly) not you. Thus the quote and the ETA.


.

Yanicka1

I do it. It work with my life. You don't want to do it....don't . My calories deficit for the week is 2000.

teamAmelia

I'm doing it at present, 500 calories twice a week and 1300 calories on all other days. Also taking vitamins and drinking lots of water. I'm not excluding any foods but have cut out fizzy drinks, tea and coffee. For exercise I'm doing Jillian Michael's 30 day shred every other day rather than every day as I'm also doing lots of work around the house. I've lost 11 pounds in 3 weeks so far.

You're losing because you're averaging 1000 calories a day, not because of the arrangement of how you're eating those calories. Not healthy or sustainable.

This. I know someone who doesn't eat on some days. :noway: How can you function without any food for the day?

tigersword

I'm doing it at present, 500 calories twice a week and 1300 calories on all other days. Also taking vitamins and drinking lots of water. I'm not excluding any foods but have cut out fizzy drinks, tea and coffee. For exercise I'm doing Jillian Michael's 30 day shred every other day rather than every day as I'm also doing lots of work around the house. I've lost 11 pounds in 3 weeks so far.

You're losing because you're averaging 1000 calories a day, not because of the arrangement of how you're eating those calories. Not healthy or sustainable.

This. I know someone who doesn't eat on some days. :noway: How can you function without any food for the day?

Very easily if you eat enough the rest of the days. It's how we evolved to function. Eating every day, and especially eating multiple times a day, is a thoroughly modern concept. Human beings are incredibly well equipped to function for periods of time without food. It's why we store fat in the first place. This is very basic biology stuff, here.

teamAmelia

I'm doing it at present, 500 calories twice a week and 1300 calories on all other days. Also taking vitamins and drinking lots of water. I'm not excluding any foods but have cut out fizzy drinks, tea and coffee. For exercise I'm doing Jillian Michael's 30 day shred every other day rather than every day as I'm also doing lots of work around the house. I've lost 11 pounds in 3 weeks so far.

You're losing because you're averaging 1000 calories a day, not because of the arrangement of how you're eating those calories. Not healthy or sustainable.

This. I know someone who doesn't eat on some days. :noway: How can you function without any food for the day?

Very easily if you eat enough the rest of the days. It's how we evolved to function. Eating every day, and especially eating multiple times a day, is a thoroughly modern concept. Human beings are incredibly well equipped to function for periods of time without food. It's why we store fat in the first place. This is very basic biology stuff, here.

I'm good. I'll *try* sticking to a well-balanced diet without worrying about getting dizzy, unfocused at work, or b!tchy bc I haven't eaten (and, that's just how I get when I haven't eaten *enough* for the day). I'm not trying to train my body to do something that people did zillions of years ago - because they had no choice. The current way is easier for me, but if it works for you and you're not hurting yourself, go for it.

pinkraynedropjacki

I'm doing it at present, 500 calories twice a week and 1300 calories on all other days. Also taking vitamins and drinking lots of water. I'm not excluding any foods but have cut out fizzy drinks, tea and coffee. For exercise I'm doing Jillian Michael's 30 day shred every other day rather than every day as I'm also doing lots of work around the house. I've lost 11 pounds in 3 weeks so far.

You're losing because you're averaging 1000 calories a day, not because of the arrangement of how you're eating those calories. Not healthy or sustainable.

This. I know someone who doesn't eat on some days. :noway: How can you function without any food for the day?

It's not hard. Every 3rd day I have no food at all. Performance is better, I run like a demon on those days & smash my own personal bests. Just because you don't eat does not mean you can not function, it actually works in reverse.

We've always been told we HAVE to eat to have energy all day...... so not true at all.

DatMurse

I'm doing it at present, 500 calories twice a week and 1300 calories on all other days. Also taking vitamins and drinking lots of water. I'm not excluding any foods but have cut out fizzy drinks, tea and coffee. For exercise I'm doing Jillian Michael's 30 day shred every other day rather than every day as I'm also doing lots of work around the house. I've lost 11 pounds in 3 weeks so far.

You're losing because you're averaging 1000 calories a day, not because of the arrangement of how you're eating those calories. Not healthy or sustainable.

This. I know someone who doesn't eat on some days. :noway: How can you function without any food for the day?

regardless of the fact that I believe this diet is unsustainable, there is nothing truly unhealthy about fasting for a day. The body stores energy in your fat cells and in your muscles/liver(glycogen).

Now in that case there is also no one that has talked about optimal muscle retention off of a 5:2 diet. There is nothing for it or against it. But they have talked about optimal muscle growth would be taking in a leucine bolus which is currently just speculation.

Anyway if it was 1 day thats fine. if its 3 days in a row, then you are probably nearing ketosis.

Have you ever thought about days after you have a big meal you arent as hungry in the morning vs if you had a light dinner?

teamAmelia

How about a lesson on cutting posts so each reply doesn't take up a whole page? I'm enjoying your battle but it takes way too long to scroll through the whole mess because neither of you have managed to learn the art of condensing.

:laugh: I'm like, "WTH?"

pinkraynedropjacki

I'm doing it at present, 500 calories twice a week and 1300 calories on all other days. Also taking vitamins and drinking lots of water. I'm not excluding any foods but have cut out fizzy drinks, tea and coffee. For exercise I'm doing Jillian Michael's 30 day shred every other day rather than every day as I'm also doing lots of work around the house. I've lost 11 pounds in 3 weeks so far.

You're losing because you're averaging 1000 calories a day, not because of the arrangement of how you're eating those calories. Not healthy or sustainable.

This. I know someone who doesn't eat on some days. :noway: How can you function without any food for the day?

regardless of the fact that I believe this diet is unsustainable, there is nothing truly unhealthy about fasting for a day. The body stores energy in your fat cells and in your muscles/liver(glycogen).

Now in that case there is also no one that has talked about optimal muscle retention off of a 5:2 diet. There is nothing for it or against it. But they have talked about optimal muscle growth would be taking in a leucine bolus which is currently just speculation.

Anyway if it was 1 day thats fine. if its 3 days in a row, then you are probably nearing ketosis.

Have you ever thought about days after you have a big meal you arent as hungry in the morning vs if you had a light dinner?

Who does it 3 days in a row? Really? Where has anyone stated doing it 3 days in a row?

Um...so then explain how not eating ANYTHING for a whole day I don't feel hungry the next day at all? Hmmmm

As for what YOU believe in it being sustainable...... that's YOUR opinion. People have been doing this for YEARS and are still doing it. What was that about sustainable? I know people on here who eat a deficit like everyone else here & they cant even do it for a few weeks..... yet somehow people doing 5:2 are able to do it way way way longer.

Better discipline. I'm sorry that YOU feel it's so bad for everyone.... but really unless YOU are doing it.... then well you have no right to say what it is or is not.

LibertyChamp

How about a lesson on cutting posts so each reply doesn't take up a whole page? I'm enjoying your battle but it takes way too long to scroll through the whole mess because neither of you have managed to learn the art of condensing.

I agree.

Pinkraynedrop- I agree with you as B. Clinton said, "I feel your pain"
and try not to blow a gasket over some sadly misguided critics. Take a short break from this thread. I did and I feel much better.:bigsmile:

sugafreak

I've now been following 5:2 for 7 weeks. 500 cals twice a week, 1600-1700 all other days. I feel fantastic, my energy levels are better - no falling asleep on the sofa when I get in from work, my IBS is a thing of the past and I find it so easy. In fact yesterday was a fast day and I felt satisfied with no hunger pangs at all. I will keep to 5:2 even when I've lost weight, so I don't see it as a fad.

At the start yes it was a shock to the system and I suffered headaches etc.. All the people who tried it for one day and gave up didn't give it a chance and I daresay find it hard to stick to any diet out there. It will not agree with everyone but isn't diversity a wonderful thing!

Mokey41

I've now been following 5:2 for 7 weeks. 500 cals twice a week, 1600-1700 all other days. I feel fantastic, my energy levels are better - no falling asleep on the sofa when I get in from work, my IBS is a thing of the past and I find it so easy. In fact yesterday was a fast day and I felt satisfied with no hunger pangs at all. I will keep to 5:2 even when I've lost weight, so I don't see it as a fad.

At the start yes it was a shock to the system and I suffered headaches etc.. All the people who tried it for one day and gave up didn't give it a chance and I daresay find it hard to stick to any diet out there. It will not agree with everyone but isn't diversity a wonderful thing!

You feel great, you're losing weight, it's da bomb, I get it but you're averaging less than 1300 calories a day. That's making it a diet and a fairly low calorie one at that because you are probably only eating your necessary deficit calories on your "feast" days and then restricting on your fast days. That wasn't the original idea behind the 5:2. You aren't supposed to be restrictive on your feast days so that you're averaging less than your BMR in general. This is where the whole thing gets a bad rap. It's misused as a crash diet plan.

Hildy_J

*opens thread*

*reads the following*

You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user
You are ignoring this user

*closes thread*

stefjc

Still here? Goody!

DatMurse... how long would you acknowledge a diet has to be in order to be sustainable? Is sustainability really a good goal? Think WW and their business ethos regarding return customers....

I set myself a long slow loss target. I cannot count calories, restrict every day etc, mind set and a physiologically broken body made that impossible. I am about to hit 2 years of modified fasting and expect to have lost 3 stones (42lbs) by the time I get to the actual anniversary.

I am on a maintenance break as my work life is all out of kilter at the moment, I have gained back a single pound after 2 months of unrestricted eating - that's how much this WOE has changed my appetite. And I don't feel guilty, a failure like friends who are on other diets. One criteria for my long term success was always how much I would NOT gain when not thinking about it as that would indicate I had a more sensible relationship with food.

Ignoring everything else, if this were a diet plan that you do approve of would you say that it is that sustainable? Is it successful?

Adding everything else, my blood work has improved across all measures. Heart, lungs, joints - all improved. I don't overeat any more, I don't crave foods, I don't have any diet hangups. Does that mean that it has been successful? Or is there another criterion that I am unaware of?

DatMurse

I'm doing it at present, 500 calories twice a week and 1300 calories on all other days. Also taking vitamins and drinking lots of water. I'm not excluding any foods but have cut out fizzy drinks, tea and coffee. For exercise I'm doing Jillian Michael's 30 day shred every other day rather than every day as I'm also doing lots of work around the house. I've lost 11 pounds in 3 weeks so far.

You're losing because you're averaging 1000 calories a day, not because of the arrangement of how you're eating those calories. Not healthy or sustainable.

This. I know someone who doesn't eat on some days. :noway: How can you function without any food for the day?

regardless of the fact that I believe this diet is unsustainable, there is nothing truly unhealthy about fasting for a day. The body stores energy in your fat cells and in your muscles/liver(glycogen).

Now in that case there is also no one that has talked about optimal muscle retention off of a 5:2 diet. There is nothing for it or against it. But they have talked about optimal muscle growth would be taking in a leucine bolus which is currently just speculation.

Anyway if it was 1 day thats fine. if its 3 days in a row, then you are probably nearing ketosis.

Have you ever thought about days after you have a big meal you arent as hungry in the morning vs if you had a light dinner?

Who does it 3 days in a row? Really? Where has anyone stated doing it 3 days in a row?

Um...so then explain how not eating ANYTHING for a whole day I don't feel hungry the next day at all? Hmmmm

As for what YOU believe in it being sustainable...... that's YOUR opinion. People have been doing this for YEARS and are still doing it. What was that about sustainable? I know people on here who eat a deficit like everyone else here & they cant even do it for a few weeks..... yet somehow people doing 5:2 are able to do it way way way longer.

Better discipline. I'm sorry that YOU feel it's so bad for everyone.... but really unless YOU are doing it.... then well you have no right to say what it is or is not.

The hell is your problem? I was talking about fasting for 3 days in a row. I was supporting the fact that this diet is not unhealthy.'

Learn to read, I never said it was unhealthy.

DatMurse

Still here? Goody!

DatMurse... how long would you acknowledge a diet has to be in order to be sustainable? Is sustainability really a good goal? Think WW and their business ethos regarding return customers....

I set myself a long slow loss target. I cannot count calories, restrict every day etc, mind set and a physiologically broken body made that impossible. I am about to hit 2 years of modified fasting and expect to have lost 3 stones (42lbs) by the time I get to the actual anniversary.

I am on a maintenance break as my work life is all out of kilter at the moment, I have gained back a single pound after 2 months of unrestricted eating - that's how much this WOE has changed my appetite. And I don't feel guilty, a failure like friends who are on other diets. One criteria for my long term success was always how much I would NOT gain when not thinking about it as that would indicate I had a more sensible relationship with food.

Ignoring everything else, if this were a diet plan that you do approve of would you say that it is that sustainable? Is it successful?

Adding everything else, my blood work has improved across all measures. Heart, lungs, joints - all improved. I don't overeat any more, I don't crave foods, I don't have any diet hangups. Does that mean that it has been successful? Or is there another criterion that I am unaware of?

I am basing it off of the average person for sustainability. Many people use eating, dinner, etc as a social practice. There many who dont but based on average, it has and will always be a social practice.

The criteria you are not aware of to improve your CBC BMP and physical is based off of being in a diet that is hypocaloric

Not VLCD or LCD, but eating less than bodily requirements.

This improvement has been shown and studies and there is nothing magical about the 5:2 diet vs a diet where we lower our caloric intake by 20% of our daily expenditure everyday

stefjc

Ah but you said it was not sustainable. I agree there is no magic here. I use it purely because I like to socialise over food. It fits with my life - and that of many others I know in real life and on the web.

But I have found it to be sustainable, that is what I asked - I am fully aware of the health criteria. I suppose I am trying to find out why you think that a very flexible, almost no brainer diet would not be sustainable. And I sort of mixed in the WW thing as it annoys me.

But, from my personal experience and that of others, admittedly self selecting successes, do find it easier, more flexible and more effective and have sustained slow and steady weightloss and maintenance over at least 2 years (my personal timescale). And I wondered what timescale you thought met your criteria for 'sustainable'.