5:2 'diet' for maintaining?
Replies
-
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.0 -
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.0 -
I'm loving the responses.
I've lost close to a 100lbs using IF as my deficit tool, and without calorie counting. I should hit maintainence by late March/early April, and am planning on using 5:2 for maintenance. The amount of calories I'll be able to consume on a 5:2 way of life (those are 2 real fasting days, not low calorie days) on my eating days are almost obscene, even with my relatively low goal weight for a man. If I continue to lose too much weight I'll probably slip in more 6:1 weeks.
The mfp app does, but it's sort of hidden away. My app isn't in english so this might not be correct words. On the sidebar go to 'nutrition' and from there you can see daily nutrition and weekly nutrition in different charts.0 -
Oh come on!1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
People hit their thumbs with hammers but that doesn't make it a bad tool.
People mis-use the MFP method, people mis-use the TDEE method, some people do 5:2 wrong....
Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day.
I'm so glad you've got friends that support your claims. Perhaps you want to talk to them, as you're not going to get the approval you want here, no matter how much you spam the message boards.
Not looking for support haha. I have already asked for my account to be deleted due to the pathetic rules that I can't discuss my own diet. Just thought I would highlight the double standards of the whole thing.
Why are you posting the same questions on so many different threads? Find me a MFP member who's averaging 1000 cals per day on 5:2 and I will show you a double standard. Also, you're on the maintenance forums - people here don't want to lose weight.0 -
But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.
I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.0 -
But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.
I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.
No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.0 -
Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.
But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.
I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.
No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.0 -
I don't do IF but do vary my calorie intake over the week to allow for special occasions. I keep an eye on my total weekly calories through MFP. I open the nutrition panel and set it to weekly and see how much I've had for the week and how much I have left. If 'Im planning ahead for something I then subtract what I plan to eat on the regular days not yet logged to see what I will have left for the event. You could use a similar approach doing IF.0
-
Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.
But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.
I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.
No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.
I didn't say it was anyone posting on here.... but you yourself acknowledged that there are people who do. Oh and I didn't say less than 1,200. I said 1,200.0 -
Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.
But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.
I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.
No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.
I didn't say it was anyone posting on here.... but you yourself acknowledged that there are people who do. Oh and I didn't say less than 1,200. I said 1,200.
So you're saying no one posting on here does.... What are these 'double standards' you seem so keen to impress on us in so many threads?0 -
Even so, I seriously doubt that you really 'know' anyone outside of MFP doing 5:2 on 1,200! If you do, go and speak to them face-to-face about it instead of multiple posting on these forums.
Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.
But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.
I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.
No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.
I didn't say it was anyone posting on here.... but you yourself acknowledged that there are people who do. Oh and I didn't say less than 1,200. I said 1,200.
You're contradicting yourself now as you started by complaining about people getting away with posting about it on here!0 -
1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
From what I've read, your people are doing it wrong.
(edit: possession)0 -
Even so, I seriously doubt that you really 'know' anyone outside of MFP doing 5:2 on 1,200! If you do, go and speak to them face-to-face about it instead of multiple posting on these forums.
Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.
But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.
I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.
No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.
I didn't say it was anyone posting on here.... but you yourself acknowledged that there are people who do. Oh and I didn't say less than 1,200. I said 1,200.
You're contradicting yourself now as you started by complaining about people getting away with posting about it on here!
How am I contradicting myself!? I meant the 5:2 diet in general promotes eating under 500 calories a day and you could be eating 7,000 calories a week on the 5:2 diet and I et 7,000 doing what I am doing, Yet apparently one is fine and the other is not.0 -
The 5:2 diet DOESN'T promote eating 1200 on normal days!!! It's 'general' principle is Normal TDEE for 5 days and 500-600cals on 2 days.
Why is this so hard to grasp?0 -
Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.
Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.
How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.
And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.
And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....
just a thought...0 -
Even so, I seriously doubt that you really 'know' anyone outside of MFP doing 5:2 on 1,200! If you do, go and speak to them face-to-face about it instead of multiple posting on these forums.
Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.
But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.
You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.
Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.
I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.
I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.
You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.
I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.
No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.
I didn't say it was anyone posting on here.... but you yourself acknowledged that there are people who do. Oh and I didn't say less than 1,200. I said 1,200.
You're contradicting yourself now as you started by complaining about people getting away with posting about it on here!
How am I contradicting myself!? I meant the 5:2 diet in general promotes eating under 500 calories a day and you could be eating 7,000 calories a week on the 5:2 diet and I et 7,000 doing what I am doing, Yet apparently one is fine and the other is not.
'In general' is 2 days per week?0 -
If you're burning 1000cals a day exercising you may want to eat back many of those to counter-act it.Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.
Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.
How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.
And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.
And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....
just a thought...
The 5:2 is just another method of calorie restriction which some people find easier to follow. Each to their own.0 -
If you're burning 1000cals a day exercising you may want to eat back many of those to counter-act it.Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.
Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.
How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.
And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.
And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....
just a thought...
The 5:2 is just another method of calorie restriction which some people find easier to follow. Each to their own.
Its a genuine question, do people doing this "diet" train on the fasting days because it would be pretty dangerous I'd think?
I eat back about 50% of my burn calories back over the week, and it works just fine, I continue to lose weight, I'm never hungry and I'm dropping body fat so its targeting the areas it should be.0 -
Hi Charlene.Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.
Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.
How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.
And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.
And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....
just a thought...
I train 6 days a week and did so throughout my weight loss period.
Using muscles for fuel is your body's absolute last resort and not something that an average person with a reasonable diet needs to worry themselves about.
Long before that you would have "hit the wall" or "bonked" when your glycogen got depleted and you would struggle to continue training that day until you ate something.
Fasting seems to have improved my ability to burn fat as I'm now able to cycle much futher without carbing up beforehand or eating while I'm riding (anecdotal....).0 -
True fasting means eating 0 cals. Dr Michael Mosely came up with the 500cal method mainly due to being unable/unwilling to fast completely for the day.
If you're burning 1000cals a day exercising you may want to eat back many of those to counter-act it.Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.
Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.
How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.
And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.
And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....
just a thought...
The 5:2 is just another method of calorie restriction which some people find easier to follow. Each to their own.
Its a genuine question, do people doing this "diet" train on the fasting days because it would be pretty dangerous I'd think?
I eat back about 50% of my burn calories back over the week, and it works just fine, I continue to lose weight, I'm never hungry and I'm dropping body fat so its targeting the areas it should be.
Brad Pilon's book Eat Stop Eat looks at complete fasts for 24 hours and is an excellent reference for anyone looking at fasting type diets. He has achieve huge success for years with this method including building muscle.0 -
Hi Charlene.Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.
Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.
How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.
And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.
And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....
just a thought...
I train 6 days a week and did so throughout my weight loss period.
Using muscles for fuel is your body's absolute last resort and not something that an average person with a reasonable diet needs to worry themselves about.
Long before that you would have "hit the wall" or "bonked" when your glycogen got depleted and you would struggle to continue training that day until you ate something.
Fasting seems to have improved my ability to burn fat as I'm now able to cycle much futher without carbing up beforehand or eating while I'm riding (anecdotal....).
Hey S
Its funny how you get so much conflicting information though because I've had chats with my doctor and PT have both advised that when the body is depleted of glycogen through lack of fuel, the first thing it goes for is muscle as the energy store and furthermore its been said that it happens with as little a deficit as 20% never-mind 75% on a fasting day.
I know from personal experience I like to essentially eat what I want hence why I exercise as much as I do so on something like the 5:2 I'd be starving and therefore overeat and start obsessing about food again which was what got me fat in the first place.
I like to think there is a reason athletes eat in the excess of 5000 a day ( I'm a big swimmer so should be eating probably more ) and yet they still maintain a peak physical condition. I'm not saying for one minute that I'm an athlete now but I used to be and my swimming allowed me to eat pretty much what I wanted and still remaining lean and healthy.
Each to their on and everything and I do respect people's choices but to me it's just another "fad" and not something I'd ever entertain.. fair play to those who have ( you said you've been on it for 18 months) and done well on it but its not a long term solution.. I enjoy the luxury of not having to fit my life around fasting days and my lifestyle at present wouldn't allow such a restrictive diet.
It is interesting to see people's views on this so cheers Simon0 -
Yes, I do. On fast days I've done an hour's runing training (hill work etc), and followed that by a dance class (it's pretty gentle stuff).
Fasted cardio is well researched - but for longer than a 45-60 minute racing speed run, I'd prefer to have had some fuel in advance. Being able to switch the 2 fast days around means that it's usually easy enough to fit it around a training schedule.0 -
I have to agree. Why would you want to totally deprive yourself twice a week when reasonable eating across the whole week would achieve the same results?
Because some people find it easier to eat low calories twice a week and "normal" calories the rest of the week as opposed to limiting themselves every single day.
Let's say my maintenance calories are 1800/day. That plus my fasting would put me at 10,000/week.
Maybe that's easier for me than <1450 calories/day. Regardless, if we were eating the same amount of calories each week, why do you care what I do as long as it works for me?0 -
I probably do 80:20 - stick to pretty healthy eating 80% of my meals and for 20% not so much. I rarely drink wine during the week and save that for the weekend. Holidays are tough and I enjoy myself and get in some extra workouts. Seems to work.0
-
I know what 5:2 is ... but what is "IF" that several people referred to?0
-
Intermittent Fasting. It refers to a number of different approaches such as 16:8 (only eating in an 8 hour window each day). Brad Pilon's "Eat Stop Eat" is the main guide, I believe.0
-
I'm at my target weight which I achieved by regular calorie counting. Over Christmas I gained back 5lb and now that I've at last lost them again, I'm wondering whether it's possible to switch to 5:2 for maintaining? That way, I'm thinking that I may not get big gains for a holiday season and then have to work on loss again. Does anyone maintain on the 5:2 routine? Could it become a way of life?
I wouldnt recommend the 5:2 for anything, full stop. A completely unnatural way of eating.
I have to agree. Why would you want to totally deprive yourself twice a week when reasonable eating across the whole week would achieve the same results?
I'm a regular faster, for several reasons. I enjoy folding fasting into my life. It's a great way to lose, or maintain, while having open, free days the majority of the time that require no counting, weighing, or measuring. For me "deprivation" on fasting days isn't painful or bothersome whatsoever, and it doesn't lead to binging. I am not a food addict who needs to shovel food in my mouth everyday, all day, so it's not an issue.
This doesn't work for everyone, but not everyone has the same relationship with eating as you do. For some of us IFing is pretty much perfect.0 -
Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.
Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.
How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.
And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.
And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....
just a thought...
I've done 12 mile race walks on fully fasted days, as I don't do 500 calorie "fasts" but true fasts. I've done heavy lifting on fast days, as do many people who IF.
The human body is well designed to run without food every single day. It is not unhealthy whatsoever to have periods of famine. That is what bodyfat is fore. Fasting does not equal starvation, and periodic fasting a day or two a week does not cause muscle wasting.
The reason this concept is difficult for you, and most people, to grasp is that you live in a society with a lot of unscientific nonsense regarding the human body that's been accepted as fact. Once you've adapted to a feast/famine cycle, which really is the way most human beings use to eat, you'd discover you're quite capable of training fully fasted.0 -
Looking for 5:2 buddies0
-
My old GP used to do 6:1 whenever he noticed his weight creeping upwards.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions