Is 5 2 just a fad?

1…1516171921

Replies

  • elisa123gal
    elisa123gal Posts: 4,322 Member
    YES
  • FP4HSharon
    FP4HSharon Posts: 664 Member
    Actually, from a medical standpoint, it gives men and (only) obese women amazing health results....weight, blood work, etc. BUT, it had negative results for non-obese women. And I'm a VERY skeptical person. Here are 2 links you might be interested in...

    First is a documentary about the health benefits of the 5:2 from the BBC...
    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/


    Second, is the article from a woman who examined the statistical info & found it is NOT healthy for non-obese women...
    http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Actually, from a medical standpoint, it gives men and (only) obese women amazing health results....weight, blood work, etc. BUT, it had negative results for non-obese women. And I'm a VERY skeptical person. Here are 2 links you might be interested in...

    First is a documentary about the health benefits of the 5:2 from the BBC...
    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/


    Second, is the article from a woman who examined the statistical info & found it is NOT healthy for non-obese women...
    http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/

    very interesting. I thought the article was going to be a crock of **** because 99% of the people here who post articles do not have any proper citations and simply follow off of anything posted online. I would like to see if they can reproduce these results.

    but I think an important question is if any weight was lost.
  • FP4HSharon
    FP4HSharon Posts: 664 Member
    Thanks for the compliment. :-)
  • lenkearney
    lenkearney Posts: 116 Member
    isn't a good idea for anyone with a continuing, chronic medical condition or who is over 60 or under 16. There's a reason why they didn't require the elderly, the ill or children to fast in ancient Israel.

    who you calling elderly? :mad:
  • honkytonks85
    honkytonks85 Posts: 669 Member
    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'.

    Sustainable is for people who have lost the weight and have kept it off for more than a 2-3 years atleast.


    After you lose ther weight can you function on a diet that you are not directly reducing the amount of calories you intake? That you can live on it, maintain your weight, without actively doing so.

    There would be nothing wrong with fasting for the rest of your life as a mechanism for maintaining weight.
  • honkytonks85
    honkytonks85 Posts: 669 Member
    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.

    How have we gone from 14kg to 44lbs. As I said, I have lost about 160lbs total in the last 8 years and managed to keep it mostly off. So I think I can talk about sustainability, probably better than most. I didn't attempt to fast during pregnancy for obvious reasons. But I could easily do it for the rest of my life.
  • LibertyChamp
    LibertyChamp Posts: 71 Member
    Actually, from a medical standpoint, it gives men and (only) obese women amazing health results....weight, blood work, etc. BUT, it had negative results for non-obese women. And I'm a VERY skeptical person. Here are 2 links you might be interested in...

    First is a documentary about the health benefits of the 5:2 from the BBC...
    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/


    Second, is the article from a woman who examined the statistical info & found it is NOT healthy for non-obese women...
    http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/

    very interesting. I thought the article was going to be a crock of **** because 99% of the people here who post articles do not have any proper citations and simply follow off of anything posted online. I would like to see if they can reproduce these results.

    but I think an important question is if any weight was lost.
    You only think it is not a crock is because it supports your cynical point of view. Also, I really don't know what you mean about "proper citatinos" It links one article to another and then finally to an article of the AJCN written about a clinical study.
    The fact is that you can find an article that links to a study that can support just about any point of view possible. In fact, here is proof that your cynical way of thinking will surely help you live a shorter life than the optimists among us. :laugh:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8193180.stm
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Just wondering why the proponents of this "diet" are all so angry?
  • hamminit
    hamminit Posts: 184 Member
    and I thought they were referring to my height :smile:
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Actually, from a medical standpoint, it gives men and (only) obese women amazing health results....weight, blood work, etc. BUT, it had negative results for non-obese women. And I'm a VERY skeptical person. Here are 2 links you might be interested in...

    First is a documentary about the health benefits of the 5:2 from the BBC...
    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/


    Second, is the article from a woman who examined the statistical info & found it is NOT healthy for non-obese women...
    http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/

    very interesting. I thought the article was going to be a crock of **** because 99% of the people here who post articles do not have any proper citations and simply follow off of anything posted online. I would like to see if they can reproduce these results.

    but I think an important question is if any weight was lost.
    You only think it is not a crock is because it supports your cynical point of view. Also, I really don't know what you mean about "proper citatinos" It links one article to another and then finally to an article of the AJCN written about a clinical study.
    The fact is that you can find an article that links to a study that can support just about any point of view possible. In fact, here is proof that your cynical way of thinking will surely help you live a shorter life than the optimists among us. :laugh:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8193180.stm

    The only reason i dont think its crock is because it has evidence to support its statement unlike most of the garbage people post linking to a simple post. I still believe the study was inconclusive due to the fact there was no body weight measurement to truly test to see if insulin sensitivity not lost is due to the fact the women werent eating less than body requirements.

    So no, I dont fully believe in the study, it just opens up additional questions and more studies. I never said 5:2 was unhealthy in any way, so I am not sure of what you are talking about.

    I dont know if you are aware of what scholarly journals are or if you ever wrote a college level paper.
    If you have you should know that references are required for a paper to become legitimate
    btw the paleoforwomen article links it directly to the study.

    . The optimism news article is obvious due to lack of stress in your body. We already know what stress does for your heart and blood vessels

    Come find me in 20 years and talk to me about if you are really going to live longer than me.
  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    Are we?
    The proponents being angry I mean.

    My understanding is that we proponents have taken one look at this thread, gone "uhuh" and moved elsewhere.

    Frankly, I'm amazed this thread is still alive, but it seems to have descended into a slanging match between a small number of participants, who STILL haven't worked out how to use quotes.
  • LibertyChamp
    LibertyChamp Posts: 71 Member

    The only reason i dont think its crock is because it has evidence to support its statement unlike most of the garbage people post linking to a simple post. I still believe the study was inconclusive due to the fact there was no body weight measurement to truly test to see if insulin sensitivity not lost is due to the fact the women werent eating less than body requirements.

    So no, I dont fully believe in the study, it just opens up additional questions and more studies. I never said 5:2 was unhealthy in any way, so I am not sure of what you are talking about.

    I dont know if you are aware of what scholarly journals are or if you ever wrote a college level paper.
    If you have you should know that references are required for a paper to become legitimate
    btw the paleoforwomen article links it directly to the study.

    . The optimism news article is obvious due to lack of stress in your body. We already know what stress does for your heart and blood vessels

    Come find me in 20 years and talk to me about if you are really going to live longer than me.
    Oh great Scholarly one, thank you for gracing this thread with your obviously knowledgeable presence. We are not worthy!
    Actually, oh great scholarly one, the "Optimistic women live longer" article is so obviously not related to stress so much that the word "stress" is not mentioned once in the article. But we know you know better, oh great scholarly one! Thanks again for gracing us with you Scholarly understanding! :embarassed:
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member

    The only reason i dont think its crock is because it has evidence to support its statement unlike most of the garbage people post linking to a simple post. I still believe the study was inconclusive due to the fact there was no body weight measurement to truly test to see if insulin sensitivity not lost is due to the fact the women werent eating less than body requirements.

    So no, I dont fully believe in the study, it just opens up additional questions and more studies. I never said 5:2 was unhealthy in any way, so I am not sure of what you are talking about.

    I dont know if you are aware of what scholarly journals are or if you ever wrote a college level paper.
    If you have you should know that references are required for a paper to become legitimate
    btw the paleoforwomen article links it directly to the study.

    . The optimism news article is obvious due to lack of stress in your body. We already know what stress does for your heart and blood vessels

    Come find me in 20 years and talk to me about if you are really going to live longer than me.
    Oh great Scholarly one, thank you for gracing this thread with your obviously knowledgeable presence. We are not worthy!
    Actually, oh great scholarly one, the "Optimistic women live longer" article is so obviously not related to stress so much that the word "stress" is not mentioned once in the article. But we know you know better, oh great scholarly one! Thanks again for gracing us with you Scholarly understanding! :embarassed:
    Thanks
  • Qskim
    Qskim Posts: 1,145 Member
    Are we?
    The proponents being angry I mean.

    My understanding is that we proponents have taken one look at this thread, gone "uhuh" and moved elsewhere.

    Frankly, I'm amazed this thread is still alive, but it seems to have descended into a slanging match between a small number of participants, who STILL haven't worked out how to use quotes.

    Aww not fair...for the record I do know how to cut and paste, I was on phone and it's fiddly! Lol. Kinda hoping DatMurse would but maybe he had same prob.

    I see passion, humor, rescue :), logic, ignorance, joy, anger...sounds like a normal thread on MFP to me. Pretty mild compared to some threads too.

    Moving on cos, yes ...uhuh....Just had to put my cut and paste ability on record.

    Leaving, quickly...
  • hollymartin90
    hollymartin90 Posts: 57 Member
    I think the 5:2 thing is just a lil bit crazy not trying to be rude everyones entitled to their own opinion but I know people on it who eat 500 calories on 2 days and then 1500 on the other 5 with no exercise.I eat about 1000 -1200cals every day with exercise isnt this healthier than practically starving on the 500 cals??the exercise would burn off the extra cals anyway!
  • jetlag
    jetlag Posts: 800 Member
    Sorry, but I'd rather eat 500 calories on 2 days than 1000 on all 7. That doesn't sound like any kind of life. Just my opinion.
  • Yanicka1
    Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
    Oh m'y god!!!!!! I should stop doing 5:2!!!!!! I Will Die and probably grow testies.....the horror. I have seen the errors of my way and you are totally right!!!!!!

    Now can we let this thread die? Please pretty please with whipped cream on top?
  • jetlag
    jetlag Posts: 800 Member
    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.

    I agree with this, in principle, but I do know folk on 5:2 who need to eat that low on food days to still lose. Thankfully, I'm not one of them.
  • hollymartin90
    hollymartin90 Posts: 57 Member
    Sorry, but I'd rather eat 500 calories on 2 days than 1000 on all 7. That doesn't sound like any kind of life. Just my opinion.

    lol i guess but its not forever...and think I would probably keel over and faint if i was only on 500!

Categories