Is 5 2 just a fad?

Hey, sure it works, you can lose a *** ton of weight using fasting methods... But as soon as you stop, you'll gain like never before.. Not to mention when performing fasting, you will lose muscle.

yep, your mussels will fall off. :huh:

Hey, sure it works, you can lose a *** ton of weight using fasting methods... But as soon as you stop, you'll gain like never before.. Not to mention when performing fasting, you will lose muscle.

yep, your mussels will fall off. :huh:

FALSE. You can lose fat and protect your lean muscle mass.

Hey, sure it works, you can lose a *** ton of weight using fasting methods... But as soon as you stop, you'll gain like never before.. Not to mention when performing fasting, you will lose muscle.

yep, your mussels will fall off. :huh:

FALSE. You can lose fat and protect your lean muscle mass.

He's was joking. :laugh: He's a faster too :flowerforyou:

Tried 5 2 as I have tried lots of other diets. didn`t work for me. Yet that could be because of my low lbm because I did HCG a few years ago.

If your not eating enough to sustain your daily activities, every day, you wont be losing just fat and a year or two down the road, find yourself. like me, being lighter, but looking fatter.

Do some weight bearing exercise two or three times a week. Think Yoga, or weights or some such. Eat to TDEE every day and the fat slowly goes away. Sometimes the weight, depending on how much you have to lose. Sometimes you just need to gain muscle and that takes time.

There is evidence if you'd care to look for it. I'm sick of posting the links to studies (the "science" you're looking for) on the subject. I've done it time and again only to have them ignored in favour of belligerent ignorance. I don't personally care if you choose to educate yourself but I do take issue with people calling "mumbo jumbo" when, in fact, they mean "too lazy to learn something new before shooting my mouth off".

There is a post in the 5:2 group called "links to clinical trials" if you actually care (I suspect you've already made up your mind, however).

i have looked. and no, there is no credible evidence it is more effective than a regular calorie deficit.

Well then call me evidence.

Stuck at 60kg since November last year, despite staying at a deficit, despite working out daily as usual. Not even 100g would go from the scale. No size either.

Start 4:3 (5:2 with an extra fast day a week) and BANG..... off comes 4kg in a month. Less working out (well still daily but not as intense) and eating my TDEE 3 days a week. Lost size, lost weight & gained my life back. No longer obsessed with calorie counting & can eat like a normal person & still lose weight.......

Funny how that never happened eating a deficit each day.


BTW people eating a deficit don't need to defend how they eat.... yet for some reason people on 5:2 do? I can't understand why people who are not willing to open their minds or just STFU care what others do. If it's not forced upon you then why do you care? You are not being told THIS is what you have to do. We're not making you do anything.

as ive said previously, if it works for you great. i'm not taking issue with the diet.

i simply have issues, as i've said already, with dodgy claims about science.

and no, you are not evidence. you are an anecdote.

genuinely pleased this works for you. i'm not disputing whether it works though.

If you're doing 1300 the 5 days why not just do 1300 every day? That level of constant deficit seems to work for most people who have been successful. Not being a 5:2 disciple myself, my understanding of the plan is that you eat at 500 on the low days and at maintenance the other 5 days (not binging past maintenance on these days). I guess the point is to get the same weekly deficit but only "suffering" two days of the week instead of every day. By eating at 1300 the other five days you are averaging just over 1000 every day which pretty much everyone will agree is too low. If you at least bump it up to 1500 on the other five days you'll have an average of 1200.

That's close. The way it is truly supposed to work (and apparently Mosely explained this badly or ignored this part) is the 500 calorie days are supposed to actually be fasting days, as in you finish eating on the previous day and then fast until dinner time the next day. The fasting part is the part that gives all the health benefits of the idea, but apparently he's explained it as people just eating small meals to total 500 calories, completely ruining the entire point of the fasting day.

If you're doing 1300 the 5 days why not just do 1300 every day? That level of constant deficit seems to work for most people who have been successful. Not being a 5:2 disciple myself, my understanding of the plan is that you eat at 500 on the low days and at maintenance the other 5 days (not binging past maintenance on these days). I guess the point is to get the same weekly deficit but only "suffering" two days of the week instead of every day. By eating at 1300 the other five days you are averaging just over 1000 every day which pretty much everyone will agree is too low. If you at least bump it up to 1500 on the other five days you'll have an average of 1200.

That's close. The way it is truly supposed to work (and apparently Mosely explained this badly or ignored this part) is the 500 calorie days are supposed to actually be fasting days, as in you finish eating on the previous day and then fast until dinner time the next day. The fasting part is the part that gives all the health benefits of the idea, but apparently he's explained it as people just eating small meals to total 500 calories, completely ruining the entire point of the fasting day.

Unless you are a faster like me & do 0 calories for 36 hours instead of having 500 cals in 36 hours.

There is evidence if you'd care to look for it. I'm sick of posting the links to studies (the "science" you're looking for) on the subject. I've done it time and again only to have them ignored in favour of belligerent ignorance. I don't personally care if you choose to educate yourself but I do take issue with people calling "mumbo jumbo" when, in fact, they mean "too lazy to learn something new before shooting my mouth off".

There is a post in the 5:2 group called "links to clinical trials" if you actually care (I suspect you've already made up your mind, however).

i have looked. and no, there is no credible evidence it is more effective than a regular calorie deficit.

Well then call me evidence.

Stuck at 60kg since November last year, despite staying at a deficit, despite working out daily as usual. Not even 100g would go from the scale. No size either.

Start 4:3 (5:2 with an extra fast day a week) and BANG..... off comes 4kg in a month. Less working out (well still daily but not as intense) and eating my TDEE 3 days a week. Lost size, lost weight & gained my life back. No longer obsessed with calorie counting & can eat like a normal person & still lose weight.......

Funny how that never happened eating a deficit each day.


BTW people eating a deficit don't need to defend how they eat.... yet for some reason people on 5:2 do? I can't understand why people who are not willing to open their minds or just STFU care what others do. If it's not forced upon you then why do you care? You are not being told THIS is what you have to do. We're not making you do anything.

N=1 is not evidence.

its cause you werent at a deficit. You were miscounting.

If you're doing 1300 the 5 days why not just do 1300 every day? That level of constant deficit seems to work for most people who have been successful. Not being a 5:2 disciple myself, my understanding of the plan is that you eat at 500 on the low days and at maintenance the other 5 days (not binging past maintenance on these days). I guess the point is to get the same weekly deficit but only "suffering" two days of the week instead of every day. By eating at 1300 the other five days you are averaging just over 1000 every day which pretty much everyone will agree is too low. If you at least bump it up to 1500 on the other five days you'll have an average of 1200.

That's close. The way it is truly supposed to work (and apparently Mosely explained this badly or ignored this part) is the 500 calorie days are supposed to actually be fasting days, as in you finish eating on the previous day and then fast until dinner time the next day. The fasting part is the part that gives all the health benefits of the idea, but apparently he's explained it as people just eating small meals to total 500 calories, completely ruining the entire point of the fasting day.

I had wondered about that also. ESE (the original) was all about dinner to dinner (easiest) or breaky to breaky which makes sense but having small meals during the day (with no macros detailed) is not truely fasting IMO.

Still a deficit is a deficit.

He does say to leave the window as long as possible. I think he states too (can't find ATM) that more research needs to be done on this. As it comes in they'll update it. It's a question that gets asked alot. I think he said there is some indication that the longer you go, the better. He's given a maximum allowance on fasting days for the sake of helping adherence. Small enough though (if you do use it) to still reap the benefits. He does say compared to some fasting methods it's a walk in the park (my words). He doesn't knock those methods either. The variety just points to flexibility in my mind!

Macros are covered as well. Beginning with protein to LBM. Muscle preservation is a desired outcome so less emphasis on scales, more so on waist measurements and so on.

I think as an IF person you would probably recognize alot of the research discussed. He's not trying to BS on anything..states that a deficit is important for weightloss..translate..watch the no cal days, stick to macros first and everything else in moderation. This is rough so don't pick at me!

The benefits to fasting don't kick in until the 18-24 hour mark, with the most benefits between 21-24. Before that there aren't really any benefits, after that the benefits don't really increase. So if you eat dinner at 6PM, you really shouldn't eat anything until 3PM the next day.

That's close. The way it is truly supposed to work (and apparently Mosely explained this badly or ignored this part) is the 500 calorie days are supposed to actually be fasting days, as in you finish eating on the previous day and then fast until dinner time the next day. The fasting part is the part that gives all the health benefits of the idea, but apparently he's explained it as people just eating small meals to total 500 calories, completely ruining the entire point of the fasting day.

I had wondered about that also. ESE (the original) was all about dinner to dinner (easiest) or breaky to breaky which makes sense but having small meals during the day (with no macros detailed) is not truely fasting IMO.

Still a deficit is a deficit.

He does say to leave the window as long as possible. I think he states too (can't find ATM) that more research needs to be done on this. As it comes in they'll update it. It's a question that gets asked alot. I think he said there is some indication that the longer you go, the better. He's given a maximum allowance on fasting days for the sake of helping adherence. Small enough though (if you do use it) to still reap the benefits. He does say compared to some fasting methods it's a walk in the park (my words). He doesn't knock those methods either. The variety just points to flexibility in my mind!

Macros are covered as well. Beginning with protein to LBM. Muscle preservation is a desired outcome so less emphasis on scales, more so on waist measurements and so on.

I think as an IF person you would probably recognize alot of the research discussed. He's not trying to BS on anything..states that a deficit is important for weightloss..translate..watch the no cal days, stick to macros first and everything else in moderation. This is rough so don't pick at me!

The benefits to fasting don't kick in until the 18-24 hour mark, with the most benefits between 21-24. Before that there aren't really any benefits, after that the benefits don't really increase. So if you eat dinner at 6PM, you really shouldn't eat anything until 3PM the next day.

I appreciate tigersword and chrisdavey's extensive knowledge on the subject. But are you both suggesting that utilizing Mosley's 5:2 method people won't get any of the fasting benefits other than weight loss? I get that his intention of adding the 500 or 600 calories on the fast days( Lo-cal days) is to facilitate adherence. But what I also understand, as I believe many other do, is that fasting benefits are also derived sticking to the Lo-cal ceilings on the fast (calorie restriction) days. Is this later assumption false in your opinion? Could it be that the fasting benefits are still derived using the 5:2 method, but perhaps not as concentrated as a pure fast? Overtime these benefits are supposed to accumulate, or so at least I gathered from Dr. Mosley's material. Do you guys also disagree with this last assumption?

Personally, I have done many 36 to 48 hour fasts before for spiritual reasons, but never more than one a year. I am not sure I have the discipline and determination to do it once or twice a week. Perhaps once a month. How often do you guys do an 18+ hour fast?
I know I have a lot of questions in here, so thanks in advance.