The 600 kcl diet

Miiimii

Hi there,

I read about the 600kcl diet which should be very effective. You eat twice a week less than 600kcl, but the rest of the week normal. The test persons lost ariund 7kg in half a year, esspecially at the belly. This kind of diet also lowers the risc of breat cancer.

I know 600kcl is way to less, but it's only twice a week, so the risc of a misnutrition is not very high.

Sounds much easier to realize than to count calories everyday.

Did anyone of you try this or heard about it?

Here are some links:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2071903/Strict-diet-days-better-calorie-counting-week.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/09/cutting-carbs-for-two-days-only-doubles-weight-loss_n_1139202.html

sweebum

It's pretty much called intermittent fasting.

brevislux

I don't think it's a good idea. If you want to lose weight and keep it you need to make a real lifestyle change.

uclown2002

There is a 5:2 (Eat Stop Eat) http://bradpilon.com/weight-loss/the-52-diet-my-review/ which fits your conditions. 5 'normal' days and 2 random days eating 600 (men) calories or 500 for women.

I know a few people doing this and it works very well for them. There is a group here called 'Intermittent Fasting' which will explain more.

KittieLea

This is ridiculous.

Miiimii

I don't think it's a good idea. If you want to lose weight and keep it you need to make a real lifestyle change.

you could also do this as a lifestyle change. I already eat very healthy, so why not reduce my calorie intake on two days to 600kcl, if it works. I can eat a lot of veggies for 600kcl, so I got vitamines and everything I need. And the rest of the week I can eat normal. Sounds not very unhealthy to me, but easy to follow - even for the rest of my life.

Miiimii

This is ridiculous.

Why? Did you read the links?

uclown2002

This is ridiculous.

Wow.

Can I ask you to explain why?

Amberonamission

Do you work out on those 600 Kcal days? I don't think I could do it. Probably not the day after either. I think a 2 day workout burn exceeds the 600 Kcal saved.

KittieLea

This is ridiculous.

Wow.

Can I ask you to explain why?

I don't need to read the links. Reducing your calories to 600 at any time is unsafe, unhealthy and unsustaintable over a long period of time. But if starving yourself is your cup of tea, be my guest. What bandwagon will you be jumping on next?

thebigcb

Whatever works for you and suits your lifestyle

Personally I eat too much, but am happy enough to make up for it with exercise, so that seems to be working for me

SaraBrown12

fasting is not an ideal life long habbit, tho i don't see the problem with it if its used as an aid in the short term to shift excess weight. When u hit your goal and need to maintain it then there will be no need for fasting. It makes sense and 600 calories is not really fasting is it. My idea of fasting is nil by mouth except water for 24 hours.

Jorra

Define eating normally. If the rest of your week cancels out the deficit on the two 600 days, it will be pointless.

Miiimii

This is ridiculous.

Wow.

Can I ask you to explain why?

I don't need to read the links. Reducing your calories to 600 at any time is unsafe, unhealthy and unsustaintable over a long period of time. But if starving yourself is your cup of tea, be my guest. What bandwagon will you be jumping on next?

Two days is not a long periode. And I'm jumping on nothing. And please read the links before saying anything else.

sweebum

I don't need to read the links. Reducing your calories to 600 at any time is unsafe, unhealthy and unsustaintable over a long period of time. But if starving yourself is your cup of tea, be my guest. What bandwagon will you be jumping on next?

This isn't true at all. From Wikipedia "Intermittent fasting (IF) is a pattern of eating that alternates between periods of fasting (usually meaning consumption of water only) and non-fasting.

There is evidence suggesting that intermittent fasting may have beneficial effects on the health and longevity of animals—including humans—that are similar to the effects of caloric restriction (CR). There is currently no consensus as to the degree to which this is simply due to fasting or an (often) concomitant overall decrease in calories, but recent studies have shown support of the former[1][2] Alternate-day calorie restriction may prolong lifespan[3]. (IF and CR are forms of Dietary Restriction (DR), which is sometimes referred to as Dietary Energy Restriction (DER).)

Scientific study of intermittent fasting in rats (and anecdotally in humans) was carried out at least as early as 1943.[4]

A specific form of IF is alternate day fasting (ADF), also referred to as every other day fasting (EOD), or every other day feeding (EODF), a 48-hour routine typically composed of a 24-hour fast followed by a 24-hour non-fasting period."

Studies on humans:

Studies on humans suggest similar beneficial results.

In the early 1960s, one study of fasting as a method of weight control noted that "[We] have noticed an improvement in the last few months in the ability of these patients to keep their weight under control by observing one fast per week [water only]. This allows them to be more liberal with their diet on the other days. I cannot overemphasize the fact that they prefer this to perpetual daily denial with no alternative."[12]

Alternative day fasting (ADF) may produce significant improvements in several markers such as LDL cholesterol in as little as eight weeks.[13]

ADF "may effectively modulate several risk factors, thereby preventing chronic disease, and that ADF may modulate disease risk to an extent similar to that of CR."[14]

Serum from humans following an IF diet had positive effects (reduced triglycerides in men and increased HDL in women, as well as reduced cell proliferation and increased heat resistance) in vitro on human hepatoma cells.[15]

IF is hypothesized to confer protection from toxic chemotherapy treatments, allowing higher doses and therefore more effective treatment for cancers.[16]

IF may function as a form of nutritional hormesis.[17][18]

Work at the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, USA found evidence that fasting for one or two days a week could protect the brain against some of the worst effects of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other ailments.[19]

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting

This isn't starving at all. Don't attack people before knowing the facts. IF has been practiced for at least 50 years. I don't do it myself as I spread my deficit, but it does work, and it is safe.

Miiimii

Define eating normally. If the rest of your week cancels out the deficit on the two 600 days, it will be pointless.

normal eating is for me:

Lunch: Salad
Dinner: for example Veggies with rice or Veggies with potatos, etc.

uclown2002

This is ridiculous.

Wow.

Can I ask you to explain why?

I don't need to read the links. Reducing your calories to 600 at any time is unsafe, unhealthy and unsustaintable over a long period of time. But if starving yourself is your cup of tea, be my guest. What bandwagon will you be jumping on next?

Ok you have a closed mind then. Try watching this horizon broadcast and come back it tell us it is still ridiculous and could not work long term as a lifestyle change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfna7nV7WaM&feature=related

KittieLea

I got to my goal weight by lifting weights and eating 1400-1700 EACH DAY. No starving involved! So while you're cutting yourself off at 600 calories 2 days a week, I'll come sit next to you while I enjoy my remaining 1100 calories. :laugh:
To each their own!

thebigcb

I'll have a pint please bar man

"rubs hands together, pulls up chair"

This should be entertaining

uclown2002

Define eating normally. If the rest of your week cancels out the deficit on the two 600 days, it will be pointless.

If you want to use it to lose rather than maintain weight you would/could eat at maintenance for the other 5 days.

thebigcb

Quick, someone google or wiki something