Is 5 2 just a fad?
Replies
-
Ah but you said it was not sustainable. I agree there is no magic here. I use it purely because I like to socialise over food. It fits with my life - and that of many others I know in real life and on the web.
But I have found it to be sustainable, that is what I asked - I am fully aware of the health criteria. I suppose I am trying to find out why you think that a very flexible, almost no brainer diet would not be sustainable. And I sort of mixed in the WW thing as it annoys me.
But, from my personal experience and that of others, admittedly self selecting successes, do find it easier, more flexible and more effective and have sustained slow and steady weightloss and maintenance over at least 2 years (my personal timescale). And I wondered what timescale you thought met your criteria for 'sustainable'.
Sustainable is for people who have lost the weight and have kept it off for more than a 2-3 years atleast.
After you lose ther weight can you function on a diet that you are not directly reducing the amount of calories you intake? That you can live on it, maintain your weight, without actively doing so.0 -
YES0
-
Actually, from a medical standpoint, it gives men and (only) obese women amazing health results....weight, blood work, etc. BUT, it had negative results for non-obese women. And I'm a VERY skeptical person. Here are 2 links you might be interested in...
First is a documentary about the health benefits of the 5:2 from the BBC...
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/
Second, is the article from a woman who examined the statistical info & found it is NOT healthy for non-obese women...
http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/0 -
Actually, from a medical standpoint, it gives men and (only) obese women amazing health results....weight, blood work, etc. BUT, it had negative results for non-obese women. And I'm a VERY skeptical person. Here are 2 links you might be interested in...
First is a documentary about the health benefits of the 5:2 from the BBC...
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/
Second, is the article from a woman who examined the statistical info & found it is NOT healthy for non-obese women...
http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/
very interesting. I thought the article was going to be a crock of **** because 99% of the people here who post articles do not have any proper citations and simply follow off of anything posted online. I would like to see if they can reproduce these results.
but I think an important question is if any weight was lost.0 -
Thanks for the compliment. :-)0
-
isn't a good idea for anyone with a continuing, chronic medical condition or who is over 60 or under 16. There's a reason why they didn't require the elderly, the ill or children to fast in ancient Israel.
who you calling elderly? :mad:0 -
Ah but you said it was not sustainable. I agree there is no magic here. I use it purely because I like to socialise over food. It fits with my life - and that of many others I know in real life and on the web.
But I have found it to be sustainable, that is what I asked - I am fully aware of the health criteria. I suppose I am trying to find out why you think that a very flexible, almost no brainer diet would not be sustainable. And I sort of mixed in the WW thing as it annoys me.
But, from my personal experience and that of others, admittedly self selecting successes, do find it easier, more flexible and more effective and have sustained slow and steady weightloss and maintenance over at least 2 years (my personal timescale). And I wondered what timescale you thought met your criteria for 'sustainable'.
Sustainable is for people who have lost the weight and have kept it off for more than a 2-3 years atleast.
After you lose ther weight can you function on a diet that you are not directly reducing the amount of calories you intake? That you can live on it, maintain your weight, without actively doing so.
There would be nothing wrong with fasting for the rest of your life as a mechanism for maintaining weight.0 -
Milk supply is granted regardless of caloric intake.
Average weight gain is not always ideal. Btw they want the average person to gain about 25-35 lbs during pregnancy, Obviously your dieting lifestyle cannot carry over to pregnancy.
BTW Healthy weight gain is not 44 lbs
What is rude? I am just stating facts. Your sustainability on the diet during pregnancy is incapable.
Everyone wants to cry out when a pregnant woman gains weight and blames it on XYZ, hormones, or person is being rude.
How have we gone from 14kg to 44lbs. As I said, I have lost about 160lbs total in the last 8 years and managed to keep it mostly off. So I think I can talk about sustainability, probably better than most. I didn't attempt to fast during pregnancy for obvious reasons. But I could easily do it for the rest of my life.0 -
You only think it is not a crock is because it supports your cynical point of view. Also, I really don't know what you mean about "proper citatinos" It links one article to another and then finally to an article of the AJCN written about a clinical study.Actually, from a medical standpoint, it gives men and (only) obese women amazing health results....weight, blood work, etc. BUT, it had negative results for non-obese women. And I'm a VERY skeptical person. Here are 2 links you might be interested in...
First is a documentary about the health benefits of the 5:2 from the BBC...
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/
Second, is the article from a woman who examined the statistical info & found it is NOT healthy for non-obese women...
http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/
very interesting. I thought the article was going to be a crock of **** because 99% of the people here who post articles do not have any proper citations and simply follow off of anything posted online. I would like to see if they can reproduce these results.
but I think an important question is if any weight was lost.
The fact is that you can find an article that links to a study that can support just about any point of view possible. In fact, here is proof that your cynical way of thinking will surely help you live a shorter life than the optimists among us. :laugh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8193180.stm0 -
Just wondering why the proponents of this "diet" are all so angry?0
-
and I thought they were referring to my height
0 -
You only think it is not a crock is because it supports your cynical point of view. Also, I really don't know what you mean about "proper citatinos" It links one article to another and then finally to an article of the AJCN written about a clinical study.Actually, from a medical standpoint, it gives men and (only) obese women amazing health results....weight, blood work, etc. BUT, it had negative results for non-obese women. And I'm a VERY skeptical person. Here are 2 links you might be interested in...
First is a documentary about the health benefits of the 5:2 from the BBC...
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/
Second, is the article from a woman who examined the statistical info & found it is NOT healthy for non-obese women...
http://www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/
very interesting. I thought the article was going to be a crock of **** because 99% of the people here who post articles do not have any proper citations and simply follow off of anything posted online. I would like to see if they can reproduce these results.
but I think an important question is if any weight was lost.
The fact is that you can find an article that links to a study that can support just about any point of view possible. In fact, here is proof that your cynical way of thinking will surely help you live a shorter life than the optimists among us. :laugh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8193180.stm
The only reason i dont think its crock is because it has evidence to support its statement unlike most of the garbage people post linking to a simple post. I still believe the study was inconclusive due to the fact there was no body weight measurement to truly test to see if insulin sensitivity not lost is due to the fact the women werent eating less than body requirements.
So no, I dont fully believe in the study, it just opens up additional questions and more studies. I never said 5:2 was unhealthy in any way, so I am not sure of what you are talking about.
I dont know if you are aware of what scholarly journals are or if you ever wrote a college level paper.
If you have you should know that references are required for a paper to become legitimate
btw the paleoforwomen article links it directly to the study.
. The optimism news article is obvious due to lack of stress in your body. We already know what stress does for your heart and blood vessels
Come find me in 20 years and talk to me about if you are really going to live longer than me.0 -
Are we?
The proponents being angry I mean.
My understanding is that we proponents have taken one look at this thread, gone "uhuh" and moved elsewhere.
Frankly, I'm amazed this thread is still alive, but it seems to have descended into a slanging match between a small number of participants, who STILL haven't worked out how to use quotes.0 -
Oh great Scholarly one, thank you for gracing this thread with your obviously knowledgeable presence. We are not worthy!
The only reason i dont think its crock is because it has evidence to support its statement unlike most of the garbage people post linking to a simple post. I still believe the study was inconclusive due to the fact there was no body weight measurement to truly test to see if insulin sensitivity not lost is due to the fact the women werent eating less than body requirements.
So no, I dont fully believe in the study, it just opens up additional questions and more studies. I never said 5:2 was unhealthy in any way, so I am not sure of what you are talking about.
I dont know if you are aware of what scholarly journals are or if you ever wrote a college level paper.
If you have you should know that references are required for a paper to become legitimate
btw the paleoforwomen article links it directly to the study.
. The optimism news article is obvious due to lack of stress in your body. We already know what stress does for your heart and blood vessels
Come find me in 20 years and talk to me about if you are really going to live longer than me.
Actually, oh great scholarly one, the "Optimistic women live longer" article is so obviously not related to stress so much that the word "stress" is not mentioned once in the article. But we know you know better, oh great scholarly one! Thanks again for gracing us with you Scholarly understanding!0 -
Thanks
Oh great Scholarly one, thank you for gracing this thread with your obviously knowledgeable presence. We are not worthy!
The only reason i dont think its crock is because it has evidence to support its statement unlike most of the garbage people post linking to a simple post. I still believe the study was inconclusive due to the fact there was no body weight measurement to truly test to see if insulin sensitivity not lost is due to the fact the women werent eating less than body requirements.
So no, I dont fully believe in the study, it just opens up additional questions and more studies. I never said 5:2 was unhealthy in any way, so I am not sure of what you are talking about.
I dont know if you are aware of what scholarly journals are or if you ever wrote a college level paper.
If you have you should know that references are required for a paper to become legitimate
btw the paleoforwomen article links it directly to the study.
. The optimism news article is obvious due to lack of stress in your body. We already know what stress does for your heart and blood vessels
Come find me in 20 years and talk to me about if you are really going to live longer than me.
Actually, oh great scholarly one, the "Optimistic women live longer" article is so obviously not related to stress so much that the word "stress" is not mentioned once in the article. But we know you know better, oh great scholarly one! Thanks again for gracing us with you Scholarly understanding!0 -
Are we?
The proponents being angry I mean.
My understanding is that we proponents have taken one look at this thread, gone "uhuh" and moved elsewhere.
Frankly, I'm amazed this thread is still alive, but it seems to have descended into a slanging match between a small number of participants, who STILL haven't worked out how to use quotes.
Aww not fair...for the record I do know how to cut and paste, I was on phone and it's fiddly! Lol. Kinda hoping DatMurse would but maybe he had same prob.
I see passion, humor, rescue, logic, ignorance, joy, anger...sounds like a normal thread on MFP to me. Pretty mild compared to some threads too.
Moving on cos, yes ...uhuh....Just had to put my cut and paste ability on record.
Leaving, quickly...0 -
I think the 5:2 thing is just a lil bit crazy not trying to be rude everyones entitled to their own opinion but I know people on it who eat 500 calories on 2 days and then 1500 on the other 5 with no exercise.I eat about 1000 -1200cals every day with exercise isnt this healthier than practically starving on the 500 cals??the exercise would burn off the extra cals anyway!0
-
Sorry, but I'd rather eat 500 calories on 2 days than 1000 on all 7. That doesn't sound like any kind of life. Just my opinion.0
-
Oh m'y god!!!!!! I should stop doing 5:2!!!!!! I Will Die and probably grow testies.....the horror. I have seen the errors of my way and you are totally right!!!!!!
Now can we let this thread die? Please pretty please with whipped cream on top?0 -
I've now been following 5:2 for 7 weeks. 500 cals twice a week, 1600-1700 all other days. I feel fantastic, my energy levels are better - no falling asleep on the sofa when I get in from work, my IBS is a thing of the past and I find it so easy. In fact yesterday was a fast day and I felt satisfied with no hunger pangs at all. I will keep to 5:2 even when I've lost weight, so I don't see it as a fad.
At the start yes it was a shock to the system and I suffered headaches etc.. All the people who tried it for one day and gave up didn't give it a chance and I daresay find it hard to stick to any diet out there. It will not agree with everyone but isn't diversity a wonderful thing!
You feel great, you're losing weight, it's da bomb, I get it but you're averaging less than 1300 calories a day. That's making it a diet and a fairly low calorie one at that because you are probably only eating your necessary deficit calories on your "feast" days and then restricting on your fast days. That wasn't the original idea behind the 5:2. You aren't supposed to be restrictive on your feast days so that you're averaging less than your BMR in general. This is where the whole thing gets a bad rap. It's misused as a crash diet plan.
I agree with this, in principle, but I do know folk on 5:2 who need to eat that low on food days to still lose. Thankfully, I'm not one of them.0 -
Sorry, but I'd rather eat 500 calories on 2 days than 1000 on all 7. That doesn't sound like any kind of life. Just my opinion.
lol i guess but its not forever...and think I would probably keel over and faint if i was only on 500!0 -
I think the 5:2 thing is just a lil bit crazy not trying to be rude everyones entitled to their own opinion but I know people on it who eat 500 calories on 2 days and then 1500 on the other 5 with no exercise.I eat about 1000 -1200cals every day with exercise isnt this healthier than practically starving on the 500 cals??the exercise would burn off the extra cals anyway!
O.....M....G
Lol Yanika.
Right, yes, leaving...0 -
Sorry, but I'd rather eat 500 calories on 2 days than 1000 on all 7. That doesn't sound like any kind of life. Just my opinion.
lol i guess but its not forever...and think I would probably keel over and faint if i was only on 500!
I think you'll find you wouldn't.
However, I KNOW I could stick to your diet for about a week, because I've tried your way and, quite frankly, it sucks for me. Awesome if it works for you, truly. But I think you're crazy and you think I am. Yay for us; let's be crazy together. The difference between us is I've seen this thing from both sides. You're just guessing at what I can see. No disrespect, truly. I know that sound harsh, but it's a fact.
That's the majority of the problem with this thread and all the others like them. Lots of opinion based on "belief" and supposition versus opinion based on experience and a lot of reading and investigation.0 -
Jetlag, I totally agree. Shhh, but be careful you might anger the great scholarly one, who will site articles and make up inferences that are not there. Shhh, please.
Peace out :flowerforyou:0 -
Bollox to him. I'm sick of this crap.0
-
Sorry, but I'd rather eat 500 calories on 2 days than 1000 on all 7. That doesn't sound like any kind of life. Just my opinion.
lol i guess but its not forever...and think I would probably keel over and faint if i was only on 500!
Well considering you've never tried it I take your 'opinion' with a huge pinch of sodium!!
PS I do train (6 days a week mix of strength, HIIT, walking & yoga) and on average eat more than 1500 on non-fast days.0 -
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:Oh m'y god!!!!!! I should stop doing 5:2!!!!!! I Will Die and probably grow testies.....the horror.0 -
0 -
Just sharing my experience for anyone who would like to hear it. I started here in Aug 2012, and managed to lose from 228 to 185 in 9 months, keeping pretty much to 1200 every day, with the exception of the Holidays.
BTW, I am 50, 5'6" and partially disabled, so fairly sedentary. My maintenance level at this point is 1500-1600.
I finally hit 185 in May, then stalled out. I knew this would probably happen at some point, but still consider my diet strategy up to that point, a success. Life got busy and I ended up eating between1400-1600 a day, and maintained pretty much for the next 2 months, so I just looked at it as a 'diet break' and tried not to stress too much.
I also spent a week at the beach with a bunch of teenagers, cooking 3 meals a day for 20 people, with lots of bacon, eggs, biscuits, gravy and hash browns for breakfast, and full lunches and dinners that were pretty heavy carbs. I came back with 4 extra pounds due to the higher carbs and cals.
When I got back, I got back on track with 1200 cals and lower carbs, and within a week the water weight was gone and I was back to 185. Nice. Then nothing for the next 2-3 weeks.
Looking at most of my friends over 50 who were managing to still lose, albeit slowly, they were all eating under 1000 on average. I was tempted to drop my cals down, as apparently my body had adjusted to the 1200, even after 2+ months at maintenance, but I just really did not want to have to go that low.
So I looked into 5:2
After the first fast day, I had broken the plateau by losing half a pound. I lost another half pound after the next 3 fast days, so in 2 weeks I had lost 2 pounds. Hey, I like this!
The next fast day I didn't lose. So I thought maybe I was eating too much on my off days. So I tried lowering them, and still nothing. Then I tinkered around with staggering higher and lower and managed to lose another pound over the next 2 weeks.
A fellow faster friend urged me to keep my off days near maintenance, so I did that the past 2 days and my weight didn't go back up. So today I start my fast at my lowest weight of 182.
It is not a super fast loss rate for me, but it certainly has gotten the scale moving again. It is also much less frustrating than staying at 1200 EVERY day, then gaining if I go out to eat or have a higher cal day.
I can go to eat at restaurants and eat real food! I can eat yummy foods at our church potlucks, without having to know the exact calorie count. I can even skip a day or two logging, and not see a gain. My eating life is much more flexible now, and I can fairly easily make it thru the 500 days, knowing that the next day I can have 1500.
For those who can lose successfully eating at the same level every day- great. Keep doing what works for you.
For many of us, the 5:2 plan is working very well.
I doubt I would have tried it from the beginning, as simply counting cals worked fine for much of the first 9 months, but when it came time to have to change things up, the 5:2 was the perfect solution for me.
So, keep it in mind for any of you who hit a plateau, or get tired of constant restricting, and need a change.
It really isn't that difficult at all after you make it thru the first fast day. That is mostly a mental block as well. I find if I spend my 500 on all protein and healthy fats, with lots of veggies, I can still eat a couple of tasty meals and not be 'starving' at all.
Sorry so long!0 -
I think the 5:2 thing is just a lil bit crazy not trying to be rude everyones entitled to their own opinion but I know people on it who eat 500 calories on 2 days and then 1500 on the other 5 with no exercise.I eat about 1000 -1200cals every day with exercise isnt this healthier than practically starving on the 500 cals??the exercise would burn off the extra cals anyway!
I can understand how it would sound crazy to some people. When I first heard of it, I thought it was pretty crazy as well. Then I read as much as I could about it, and followed some people where were succeeding on it, and decided that it was worth a try.
When I was in my 20s, I could eat around 900 cals for a couple of weeks and drop 10-15 lbs fairly easily. Then just go back to normal and maintain.
At 50, my body doesn't work like that anymore. Seems most of the rules of 'science' kinda go out the window. So I have to be creative now. It sucks, but that is life. It isn't always fair. But if we try, we can each find the path that works for us.
BTW, you have gorgeous eyes!
ETA for some reason, at my age, exercise doesn't seem to burn near as many calories as it once did either. So burning off the extra calories would require more exercise and at a higher intensity than my body can handle at this point. I exercise for fitness, and count calories for weight loss.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions