5:2 Diet Craze

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.

Oh, thanks for the info.

Guess I'll go Tuesday and Friday next week in that case.

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.

Theres afew million people tha would disagree with 'its not that difficult!'

Don't.

Eat right and exercise. I don't know why people cant get its all about calories in/calories out. The simplest answer is usually the right one.

just started the book lets see what i find out next week though this week has been like a fruit detox 1st 3 days great the 4th hard as hell

It isn't a "fad" diet - there is very strong evidence that it helps combat a range of very dangerous diseases - Diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer's to name three.

The science behind it is that fasting reduces a particular hormone and puts your body in a 'repair' mode (as opposed to a 'growth' mode). Fasting before chemotherapy can seriously reduce the risks of sickness and hair loss and those who do it report not feeling nearly as ill as those who don't.

It stabilizes insulin levels too - so anyone who believes they are insulin resistance should do a bit of research and give it a go.

And it is known (in true Dothraki tradition) that exercising after a fasting period burns more fat...

And....ok, if your weekly calorie deficit is attained on 2 days a week fasting, rather than 7 days a week calorie reduction then hey ho, does it matter, much?

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 now do the 16:8 - which means I eat between the hours of 10am and 6pm and fast between 6pm and 10am - if that makes sense. It's easier to do and you can pick whichever times suit you most and you can do it just 1 day a week or any amount...I do it all the time (so 7 days a week)....

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.