TheFast Diet

OP, do your research and ignore the people who can't be bothered to educate themselves. Do what you want, it's your body.

Personally, I HAVE done the research, am satisfied it's a safe way of eating with advantages above and beyond weight loss. It works for me, is sustainable and I've seen great results.

5:2 works for me. I've lost 19 pounds in 8 weeks, 15 of which were from fat. Considering I have a back injury so am unable to lift weights, possibly ever again, I'm over the moon to have lost such a low %age of muscle. No other way of eating has been sustainable for me. No other way of eating has given me similar results. It's given me my life back.

There are those who will tell you that their way is the only way. That's total BS. Do your research then do what YOU want.

I'm so sick of this crap. I know I can't force anyone to educate themselves, but this is getting stupid.

Do you know why it works for you?

Ah yeah, thats because you're creating a caloric deficit.

So what? You're the only one here insisting that one method has to better than any other. 5:2 is a deficit pattern I can live with, that many many people can live with, that makes losing weight easy. Show me the evidence that it's dangerous or "ridiculous" or that backs up any of your BS. You can't because there isn't any. In the meantime, you continue to spout off like you're some kind of expert.

You don't want to do it, fine! Don't! But either educate yourself or be quiet because you're making yourself look ignorant and arrogant, the worst possible combination in any human being.

There are lots of ways of restricting calories. Leangains works. ADF works. IF works. The warrior diet works. Daily restriction works. Atkins works. Weight Watchers works. Slimming World, low fat, South Beach, JUDDD, slimfast. the list is endless. Lots of things work, if you can stick to it for life and there's the rub. This works for me and lots of others, and, for me at least, it is completely and utterly sustainable which is more than I can say for any other method I've tried. Everyone needs to find their own way, but they need FACTS not opinion, hearsay or supposition.

If you had a PhD and had actually studied it in any way, like Dr Michael Mosley or Dr Kirsten Varady, I might give your opinion more credence. But you are an insufferable know it all on an Internet forum, nothing more.

OP, do your research and ignore the people who can't be bothered to educate themselves. Do what you want, it's your body.

Personally, I HAVE done the research, am satisfied it's a safe way of eating with advantages above and beyond weight loss. It works for me, is sustainable and I've seen great results.

5:2 works for me. I've lost 19 pounds in 8 weeks, 15 of which were from fat. Considering I have a back injury so am unable to lift weights, possibly ever again, I'm over the moon to have lost such a low %age of muscle. No other way of eating has been sustainable for me. No other way of eating has given me similar results. It's given me my life back.

There are those who will tell you that their way is the only way. That's total BS. Do your research then do what YOU want.

I'm so sick of this crap. I know I can't force anyone to educate themselves, but this is getting stupid.

Do you know why it works for you?

Ah yeah, thats because you're creating a caloric deficit.

So what? You're the only one here insisting that one method has to better than any other. 5:2 is a deficit pattern I can live with, that many many people can live with, that makes losing weight easy. Show me the evidence that it's dangerous or "ridiculous" or that backs up any of your BS. You can't because there isn't any. In the meantime, you continue to spout off like you're some kind of expert.

You don't want to do it, fine! Don't! But either educate yourself or be quiet because you're making yourself look ignorant and arrogant, the worst possible combination in any human being.

There are lots of ways of restricting calories. Leangains works. ADF works. IF works. The warrior diet works. Daily restriction works. Atkins works. Weight Watchers works. Slimming World, low fat, South Beach, JUDDD, slimfast. the list is endless. Lots of things work, if you can stick to it for life and there's the rub. This works for me and lots of others, and, for me at least, it is completely and utterly sustainable which is more than I can say for any other method I've tried. Everyone needs to find their own way, but they need FACTS not opinion, hearsay or supposition.

If you had a PhD and had actually studied it in any way, like Dr Michael Mosley or Dr Kirsten Varady, I might give your opinion more credence. But you are an insufferable know it all on an Internet forum, nothing more.

Ok so lets get one thing straight, you've admitted many ways work (exactly what I've said).

Now, tell me WHY you want to eat so little on 2 days - give me an actual reason (for fat loss) - I say fat loss because you made it very evident in your post, which is why you did it. You also said its the only way of eating that has given you these results. Why?

If i'm honest with you, Michael Mosley is laughed at by people much higher than him in the qualification world (if qualifications is what seems to do it for you people).

Fact = Consume less calories than you lose = fat loss occurs.

Whether you do 5:2 or not, if you consumed the same weekly calories you do now, without fasting,, the fat loss results = same.

Doesn't work for me. When a plan tells me I can eat as much as I feel like without gaining weight if I only eat between such and so hours or on such and so days I seem to take it as a challenge. :sad:

Ah, well, 5:2 doesn't advocate that because its not 16:8 or the warrior diet. It is a calorie restricted way of eating, pure and simple.

16:8 and the warrior diet are calorie restricted ways of eating, as should all diets because its a lifestyle thing, so you have a pointless.... point here.

When someone is so far from homeostasis, any form of dieting will work.

May I just quibble with that bit (and the next bit too, plus the IF is ED, but that would be opinion).

Homeostasis can occur at any weight, any bodyfat% etc. It does not mean being at ideal weight etc. it just means at equilibrium. And a person who has weighed 20 stones for 10 years has achieved it!

Uber-coffee sounded OK until I realised you probably meant the bulletproof thing. I never understood that! Why do that to coffee? And what on Earth must it taste like?

16:8 and the warrior diet are calorie restricted ways of eating, as should all diets because its a lifestyle thing, so you have a pointless.... point here.

No, not all diets are calorie restricted nor should they be. Go and look up the definition of 'diet' .

I don't work because I don't want to. I don't need to. I don't claim benefits, I never have, never will. (even if I did, it wouldn't be any of your business).

Ahhhh still living off Mum & Dad then. I get ya. So then, instead of sitting here arguing all day, why not toddle off and do something constructive with your life? You're certainly not helping anyone here and frankly you appear to be about as welcome in this thread as a dose of the clap.

There are so many benefits but the best is that I haven't had a single panic attack is 7 weeks since I started.

The joys of being in control

Congratulations. Long may all of that continue.

Hmmmm????

May I just quibble with that bit (and the next bit too, plus the IF is ED, but that would be opinion).

Homeostasis can occur at any weight, any bodyfat% etc. It does not mean being at ideal weight etc. it just means at equilibrium. And a person who has weighed 20 stones for 10 years has achieved it!

Huh. Yeah, I s'pose. I was using it in a general sort of age/height/caloric intake sense. But I'm a prescriptivist at heart, so shame on me.

Also, I don't personally think IF is an ED, but it's a not-uncommon belief.

Hmmmm????

Not so surprising turn of events in this thread.

Id say not to fast.when i started my journey 117 lbs ago i chose to fast. I didnt plan a start or end date i just wanted to lose weight.i lasted 21 days and losr 30 lbs and then i had felt faint and gave up with the fast.i was going to gradually being calories in but then couldnt stop eating.i gained 10 lbs back within 3 days and then it took awhile for my body to lose weight with food.so for 5-10 lbs id say no bc it will come back fast and probably add 5

Id say not to fast.when i started my journey 117 lbs ago i chose to fast. I didnt plan a start or end date i just wanted to lose weight.i lasted 21 days and losr 30 lbs and then i had felt faint and gave up with the fast.i was going to gradually being calories in but then couldnt stop eating.i gained 10 lbs back within 3 days and then it took awhile for my body to lose weight with food.so for 5-10 lbs id say no bc it will come back fast and probably add 5

Hi, no offense, but I don't think you understand how the word 'fast' is used in the IF sense. On the 5:2 plan, you choose 2 NONCONSECUTIVE days (did you read that, Ritchie?) to create your calorie deficit for the week. For women, that is generally 500 cals, and for men- 600. The other 5 days you eat at maintenance.

So you are not going without ANY food for days at a time. You don't even eat at zero cals for one day, or even 16 hours. You can spread your 500/600 cals over the day or eat them all at once- your choice.

I'd rather do a strict fast than eat 600 cal in a day.

5:2 falls in this weird valley between LeanGains and not even bothering to diet, which I could see leading to eating disorders right-quick (that's if you don't consider any form of IF to be an ED, which some do.)

Just as there are newbie muscle gains, IMO there are also newbie fat losses. When someone is so far from homeostasis, any form of dieting will work. IF was originally implemented by folks flirting with single-digit bodyfat. It's since ballooned (herp) in both adoption and implementation. Just as the latter is often poorly justified (i.e. that uber-coffee nonsense), so is the former.

As to the OP, 200 cal isn't much of a distinction to forestall metabolic stagnation. Maybe up the calories on one of your workout days.

I'm glad you picked up on the fact that the OP has hit a plateau, and cycling calories can often help forestall metabolic stagnation.
Hence the 500 days vs maintenance days. And if she simply ups her calories on some days, without lowering on the other days, then she will decrease her calorie deficit for the week. And as Ritchie has stated so many times, calorie deficit is what causes weight loss.

ROFL at person who thinks zero calorie fasting for 16 hours a day is wonderful and restricting to 600 a day twice a week is pointless and ridiculous. :laugh:

I've nothing against Leangains, perfectly valid choice, but to champion one form of IF over another makes zero sense.

Both methods work just like both methods suit different people.

I said several times neither lead to any form of accelerated fat loss. That is what the topic is about. No human should be eating 1,200 calories over 48 hours.

Good day!

Wait who is eating 1200 over 48 hours? IS that what you think 5:2 is? Um no.

Monday fast day.... Tuesday AND Wednesday normal TDEE....Thursday fast day....... Friday, Saturday AND Sunday normal TDEE days. Where is someone fasting for 48 hours? Do you have a new timezone I don't know about?


4:3...... Every 3rd day is a fast day..... no 2 days in a row. Once again.... I have no idea how you came up with it.

600 for MEN..... 500 for WOMEN. You are stuck on one MENtality...... that would be the testosterone in you making it hard to think.

Ok, same thing applies, no human needs to eat 500 calories in one day, what is your point? It's a pointless strategy.

jeesh 5 pages ...of back and forth banter ...you kinda forget about the OP in all this mess you guys need a talkshow...5:2 ...4:3 Tdee IF over and out!

Bump to follow punch up tomorrow ROFL