5:2 Diet Craze

I started it in mid January, after watching the documentary and reading the book. I gave it a 4 week trial to see if it suited me. And I'm still doing it! I don't find myself over eating on non-fast days, but clearly if that was happening to someone then it's not for them.

It's not the only way to lose weight, but it has certain attractions and advantages which I value, and I find 500 calories twice a week is very doable, I'm not gnawing my arm off and I'm still able to exercise with no impact on performance.

Horses for courses- some people love it, some people find its too slow, some people can't handle it.

Wait Dr. Mosley?

You know, there's a YouTube series about Dr Mosley and PILLLLS.

Totally unrelated, but I could never take advice from a guy named Dr. Mosley. It would be like getting marriage counselling from Henry the Eighth.

after my first 5, then first 2, I found that I wanted to over eat the next day. I didn't binge much but hope I get to the point that I don't want to do that after the 2 days.

after my first 5, then first 2, I found that I wanted to over eat the next day. I didn't binge much but hope I get to the point that I don't want to do that after the 2 days.

Are you doing back to back fasting days, or separating them? They should not be consecutive.

Back to back. I thought that would be better as it would put your body in healing mode for longer than doing alternate days?

I didn't have trouble sticking to the 600 calories on the 2 days, in fact I have been shocked that reducing my calorie intake to about a 1/2 of what I had been eating suddenly (I mean 1800 on normal days. Think I was gobbling down 3000-4000 cals each day up until, a week or so ago) hasn't been a LOT more difficult than it has been.

I decided that calorie count is second to making sure I am not hungry.

And i felt hungry constantly the day after fasting. About hourly. I ate each time, but small amounts and low cal, so only blew out by 800 cals on the day (my first day over target cals)

I'm hoping it just means my body felt like it needed food that often for positive reasons, and hoping it might even be good for my weight loss long term.

Never dieted before in my 47 years so i have no clue really. Just learning and guessing as i go.

after my first 5, then first 2, I found that I wanted to over eat the next day. I didn't binge much but hope I get to the point that I don't want to do that after the 2 days.

Are you doing back to back fasting days, or separating them? They should not be consecutive.

Back to back. I thought that would be better as it would put your body in healing mode for longer than doing alternate days?

I didn't have trouble sticking to the 600 calories on the 2 days, in fact I have been shocked that reducing my calorie intake to about a 1/2 of what I had been eating suddenly (I mean 1800 on normal days. Think I was gobbling down 3000-4000 cals each day up until, a week or so ago) hasn't been a LOT more difficult than it has been.

I decided that calorie count is second to making sure I am not hungry.

And i felt hungry constantly the day after fasting. About hourly. I ate each time, but small amounts and low cal, so only blew out by 800 cals on the day (my first day over target cals)

I'm hoping it just means my body felt like it needed food that often for positive reasons, and hoping it might even be good for my weight loss long term.

Never dieted before in my 47 years so i have no clue really. Just learning and guessing as i go.

Try separating your fasting days, even with one eating day in between. The book specifically mentions that you're not supposed to do consecutive fasting days. There's also research into the dreaded starvation mode which seems to indicate any fasting over around 40 hours can be detrimental to your metabolism. I'm not sure that I buy that, but I do believe too much stress on the body is not really a good thing. The healing mode only goes so far before it turns into over-stress.

ETA: That could be why you feel the need to eat more on the day you break your fast. JMHO.

Over eat five days a week and make up for it by under eating two days a week? Why? Just eat better all the time. It's simply not that difficult.

You're not _supposed_ to over eat. You are supposed to just eat normally. "Whatever you want" was not supposed to be translated into "eat a dozen eclairs".

Mmm eclairs

after my first 5, then first 2, I found that I wanted to over eat the next day. I didn't binge much but hope I get to the point that I don't want to do that after the 2 days.

Are you doing back to back fasting days, or separating them? They should not be consecutive.

Back to back. I thought that would be better as it would put your body in healing mode for longer than doing alternate days?

I didn't have trouble sticking to the 600 calories on the 2 days, in fact I have been shocked that reducing my calorie intake to about a 1/2 of what I had been eating suddenly (I mean 1800 on normal days. Think I was gobbling down 3000-4000 cals each day up until, a week or so ago) hasn't been a LOT more difficult than it has been.

I decided that calorie count is second to making sure I am not hungry.

And i felt hungry constantly the day after fasting. About hourly. I ate each time, but small amounts and low cal, so only blew out by 800 cals on the day (my first day over target cals)

I'm hoping it just means my body felt like it needed food that often for positive reasons, and hoping it might even be good for my weight loss long term.

Never dieted before in my 47 years so i have no clue really. Just learning and guessing as i go.

Why are you deliberately making it harder, then complaining it's too hard??

You're supposed to fast on non-consecutive days so you get a day or two, or three of recovery. Think of it as spreading the "healing effect" over the week.

I was engaging in the conversation, not complaining. And I didn't deliberately make it harder. I thought that was how the diet was supposed to be done.

I suspect i might find 2 separate days tougher to follow and plan for than consecutive ones personally too.

I wonder if you add up a week of total calories (fasting and eating days_ and divide by 7 - you will get a calorie deficit thereby losing weight. I think if you have this same deficit through regular eating - you probably have the same weight loss over a week period of time. Just a thought.

Firstly stop *****ing at each other, the question was put to get answers and surely as adults we can accept people have different opinions????

What I like about this approach is that periodically you can eat what ever you "want"

This means for me that I don't get fed up with the weight loss thing.

I like chips, and alcohol, and I know they make me fat, but by fasting 4:3 and having a couple of days off a week, and starting to exercise I have a least started my journey, and hope to get to where I want to be.

It's been 9 weeks since I started, and I am happy that I can see another 9 or 29 weeks ahead of me where over the week my calories will be less than my TDEE. So I should get smaller, which is what I want.

What's not to like???

BUT it is just a way of eating your calories over a week, which helps you get smaller. There are other benefits.

1. You get hungry and deal with it, which is a skill some have forgotten
2. Your appetite on normal days declines
3. As you count calories really strictly on a couple of days you educate yourself what food gives you most satisfaction for least calories... Hairy Bikers is excellent for this.
4. It's sustainable in the medium term for us lazy slackers who haven't got such high motivation.
5. Eat **** and you haven't screwed the diet, just log it, forget it, and move on.
6. You might not get Diabetes, as the fasting helps you regulate your insulin as you are not always topping it up with carbs.
7. You become better at sex, can see through walls, can fly and become really good at Sudoku.


All except 7 are correct at the time of going to press although studies in Rats and Umpalumpa's show 7 to be correct as well.

Bump! Will need to read through the various links posted P:

Averaging 1650 calories/day with the 2 fast days.



Todays MFP goals (13th just about over here)

For those who say they can't eat just x00 kcals a day, I think there's a twist. The rule is that you have to eat 500/600 kcals in a 24 hour period which means prior to that 24 hour period, you can have a nice big feed at 11am and a nice big feed at 12 noon the next day, with a light dinner of 500/600 kcals on the evening of the first day. Which means you've had just 500/600 kcals in a 24 hour timeframe but during each day you may well have eaten 1500 calories! Another rule is that you're not supposed to do "fasts" two days in a row (they're not proper fasts as you are eating light snacks whenever you want to a total of 500 or 600 kcals).

I tried 5:2 but I think it was just too restrictive - I think, now I should have upped my 500 calorie allowance to a more realistic 1,000 (I weigh 250 pounds so I think I just needed more) but I didn't binge on non-fast days.

I think there's a reason why women are recommended to only eat 500 a day and men 600 a day on fasting days - I am guessing it helps with the health benefits and if you eat 1000 then it's just not going to trigger the body reactions you listed in your post.

A lot of people over here have been doing it, and it sounds interesting.I've heard good reports from friends I can't do it, as I have hypoglycaemia and am prone to passing out or migraines if I go for prolonged periods without food.

However, I was listening to Radio 4 the other evening, and they had some scientists on who had been involved in studies on intermittent fasting (not necessarily the 5:2 version), and the consensus was that whilst there were some results re it helping with certain illnesses, the study groups were too small and had not been studied over a long enough period to give a consistent result. This was around studies on breast cancer and cognitive illnesses. There was a small study on dieting, that showed good results, but the long term follow up periods was only 2 months. In fact here is what the NHS has to say about it:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-the-5-2-intermittent-fasting-diet-work.aspx

There are links to the actual studies at the bottom of the article if anyone has the stamina to read that much!

What I found interesting was how long this has been about - a study is referred to in Spain in 1957!

There are so many people doing this now as a lifestyle change that I would think it would be an ideal time to involve them in a study over a longer period. Unfortunately I'm not a health researcher. Damn!

I think this does work for certain people - not for me, I can do 500 cals two days a week - I was ready to eat my cats! :noway:

BUT the claims of all the health benefits are far from conclusive. This is a very interesting review of the book and the claims it makes - I would suggest reading it before you buy the book. (if the reason you want to do this is for the health benefits)

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2013/04/diet-book-review-fast-diet.html

A few things stand out

" One of the book's primary theories is that fasting is helpful because it reduces circulating levels of IGF-1 (insulin like growth factor 1) which in the case of a particular strain of mouse, might be implicated in many disease processes including aging and cancer ... One study I looked at showed a decrease in IGF-1 only when energy restriction was accomplished by means of a 10 week liquid ADMF diet, while the other, actually showed little change or even a small rise in IGF-1 levels following a full 6 month trial of ADMF dieting by overweight women. But rather than report on the effect one of the longest and largest trials of ADMF dieting in overweight humans that showed no change to circulating IGF-1"

and regarding doing this as a lifestyle change

"ow whether that's true or simply the effect of post-purchase rationalization it flies some in the face of Dr. Varady's work with ADMF dieters which showed that folks randomized to intermittent fasting ala The Fast Diet's style for 6 months were far less likely than those randomized to more traditional caloric restriction to want to sustain the intervention (58% vs. 85%)."


Now again - if it works for you that is great, if it helps you lose weight wonderful, but the science regarding the health benefits is not there yet. A lot of the claims made in both the book and documentary were over exaggerated and cannot be backed up by scientific studies. And as shown in the review above some studies are suggesting there is no change in the IGF-1 which is suppose to be the key to certain disease prevention.

:flowerforyou:

I just want people to have the full facts before embarking on this.