why 500 cals on a fast?

gsp90x
gsp90x Posts: 416 Member
edited November 14 in Social Groups
So DittoDan recently asked people how and why and if, they did any intermittent fasting.

Something that I saw a bit mentioned was that some people will "fast" for lets say a day, and consider it a fast as long as they consume under 500 calories.

I'm wondering where this idea came from. Can people share their thoughts on why the 500 calories as opposed to nothing. Any resource where this came from initially? What's the logic other than restricting severely for a day? Does it affect insulin the same as not eating? Surelyt there's a difference in insulin. And then, I'm supposing the tyes of calories must matter too.


I tried my first fast today. Water didn't go so well, but I thought "I'll go easy on myself for the first go" and tried this 500 cals thing. Then it went fine.

Any thoughts, advice? Point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Replies

  • Sajyana
    Sajyana Posts: 518 Member
    thefastdiet.co.uk/

    Possible because of this?
  • gsp90x
    gsp90x Posts: 416 Member
    hmmm. seems like a good start. Their webstie seems pretty sham artist to me. They don't give you ANY info really (I'll give them half a pass on that one as they ARE trying to sell their book which HOPEFULLY has the answers in it).

    BUT they're still using BMI which people knew was crap years ago.

    So they say on a "fast" day, you should eat a quarter of your normal calories. Fine. BUT traditionally a fast is No calories. So a quarter of your daily seems a little arbitray without any further explanation. They say how they came up with 500 calories but they don't say how they came to the decision of 1/4 of your normal calories.

    So, that's for sure perhaps where this started.... but is there any evidence that it's better than no calories? And eating 500 cals, does that negate the reset of the insulin. Is that dependant on no calories? Is the answer even out there?

    One piece of the puzzle. Thanks Sajyana!
  • gsp90x
    gsp90x Posts: 416 Member
    aha!

    So this is from one of their forums. Unfortunately I would have had to sign up and stuff to be able to comment on their site but I couldn't be bothered! Check out their "straightening you out" speach. Their book is called "The Fast Diet". Yet they're going on about how it's not fasting and it's not for losing weight. It's for increased health. Then why the he!! did they call it the "fast" "diet"! Gawd I hate marketing B.S.

    Anyway....
    Permalink

    Hi:

    I am seeing much more confusion between doing 5:2 and ‘fasting’. Another way to put it is confusion between severe calorie restriction and the length of time between eating. For the record, it is the severe calorie restriction twice a week that leads to weight loss when following 5:2 (and, perhaps, other ‘health benefits’), not the time between eating.

    5:2 was born from a documentary Dr. M did on calorie restriction and life extension (not weight loss). Only one of the four basic segments of the show was on fasting. That segment was all about a four day fast that yielded good blood work results (‘fast’ meaning eating no food for four days) . However, the researcher involved said that to continue benefiting, you would have to do four day fasts monthly (I’m going from memory), and Dr. M decided that he could not do fasts that often even if he did get the positive results.

    Another segment was on a man that had been eating 1900 calories a day for over 10 years. He weighed 134 pounds and was in excellent health. Dr. M decided he could not do that, either. A third segment was on ADF – alternate day fasting – where people alternated between eating 500/600 calories one day and eating what they wanted the next. That approach yielded good blood work and weight loss results regardless of what people ate on their non diet days. The fourth was on calorie restriction and Alzheimer’s. Initial research on animals indicates severe calorie restriction can delay its onset

    At the end of the show, in consultation with the researchers, Dr. M came up with what we now know as 5:2 and decided to try it for five weeks. It worked for him, yielding good blood work results. The show noted as an aside that Dr. M lost weight. After it was aired, people tried 5:2 (presumably for the potential health benefits) and began losing weight. Recognizing a good thing when it appeared, Dr. M quickly wrote a weight loss diet book (not a life extension diet book), and the rest is history.

    The point is 5:2 is about calorie restriction, not fasting in the sense of time between meals. To explain, I see people not eating (fasting) for 24 hours (say, 2 pm to 2 pm the next day) and thinking they will automatically lose weight. But they eat their TDEE before 2 pm (because they will not be eating for a ‘day’) and eat their TDEE after 2 pm the following day (because they are hungry), often with 500/600 calories in between. There is no calorie restriction, they do not lose weight, and they quit because ‘it does not work’. It is the same for 16:8, don’t eat until 5 pm or any other ‘time between eating’ diet plan. They can work, but only if you count your calories and make sure you eat under your TDEE every day. They are reduced calorie diets, that do not have the potential health benefits that come from severe calorie restriction, using an IF (‘Intermittent Fasting’) label. I have nothing against any weight loss diet ‘that works for you’, but this is the 5:2 site, so I am focusing here on how ‘the real 5:2′ works (not options or off-shoots).

    So if you are a newbie here because you want to try 5:2, I recommend you start by doing 5:2 correctly for at least two months before you start thinking of doing something else.

    ‘Doing 5:2 correctly’ means going to bed, getting up, eating 500/600 calories while you are awake, going to bed, getting up and eating normally – twice a week. ‘Normally’ means eating your TDEE or less. Here is what you need to know about TDEE: http://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/tdee-for-the-curious-or-why-dont-i-lose-weight-faster/. And here are some general tips for those just starting: http://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/warnings-to-newbies/.

    There are tens of thousands of people quietly being successful with 5:2. The ones who are not being successful generally are simply eating too much on their non-diet days (and often their diet days, too). It makes no difference if you eat a (small) breakfast, lunch and/or dinner on your diet days, eat only one meal or don’t eat anything, because time between meals is irrelevant. It is the severe calorie restriction twice a week that counts!

    Good Luck!


    So. After all that......
    I'd still like to hear folks weigh in on the calorie restriction vs. no calories. Or, again, point me somewhere else.

    Thank you very much!!
  • Mistizoom
    Mistizoom Posts: 578 Member
    JUDDD (Johnson Up Day Down Day Diet) is an alternate day fasting diet with usually around 500 cal in the "down day". It can be combined with low carb, but usually not. http://www.johnsonupdaydowndaydiet.com/
  • wabmester
    wabmester Posts: 2,748 Member
    I think the fad started with a documentary in the UK. Probably the same as the "fast diet" site above.

    You can get the same effect by just skipping breakfast.
  • sbom1
    sbom1 Posts: 227 Member
    Here's how I view it...I count my fast from end of dinner Sunday night (for example) until I break-fast at around 2:30-3pm on Monday-only water, coffee, tea with small splash of white stuff or broth; I read several references stating that for women 18 hours fast seems to be ideal for fat loss (sorry don't have them at fingertips-maybe Krista Varaday from Chicago?); men can get the same fat burning with fewer hours, more like 14. Then I consume my 500 cals the rest of the day Monday, ending with dinner around 7pm. I then don't eat anything until at least 7:30am Tuesday, and I'm trying for 10am to get another 12-14 hour "fast" in. I consider the fast broken with anything over 50 cals, but that's just my interpretation.
  • sbom1
    sbom1 Posts: 227 Member
    wabmester wrote: »
    I think the fad started with a documentary in the UK. Probably the same as the "fast diet" site above.

    You can get the same effect by just skipping breakfast.

    I agree somewhat as far as a fast but part of it is also (you may not be a believer and I'm not going to debate it) reducing the overall intake of calories over the course of the week. So if you just skip breakfast and then eat as normal, you really aren't "getting the safe effect." IMO.
  • wabmester
    wabmester Posts: 2,748 Member
    I think you're right about how IF works: you under-eat, then you over-eat, but you over-eat less than you under-eat, so the net effect is a calorie deficit.

    That's the same way skipping breakfast works. You do end up hungrier, and you eat more later, but not enough to compensate for the missed meal. The net effect is a calorie deficit.

    That's the way all diets work. IF seems to be about as effective as "normal" dieting, and so is meal skipping. Frankly, neither method has been studied extensively, but I would guess a LCHF diet would work better than either. Not sure why you would do both.
  • totaloblivia
    totaloblivia Posts: 1,164 Member
    I did the IF last year: one day 500 caps, one day whatever you like. It did work, but I couldn't keep it up beyond 3 months. It wasn't too bad, but had to eat my cals at lunch as was hangry if I waited for dinner on the fasting day. I'm not sure my way of feasting was good for me. Now I do 16:8. It helps keep my daily cals lower and keeps ketones up. The 5:2 diet is very popular here in the UK. Unfortunately foe me I can easily eat too much on the 5 days to counteract any benefits of restrictions on the 2 days!
  • Jolene5329
    Jolene5329 Posts: 14 Member
    I know a lady who does it from my diabetic community. A lot of us adjust our fast times due to medication needs, etc. I believe in lengthening my hours of no food from the last evening meal to breakfast. THAT is what works for me. I honestly believe I would starve at 500 calories a day LOL So, I go without food for a time period longer than normal 2 days a week.
  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,600 Member
    wabmester wrote: »
    That's the way all diets work. IF seems to be about as effective as "normal" dieting, and so is meal skipping. Frankly, neither method has been studied extensively, but I would guess a LCHF diet would work better than either. Not sure why you would do both.

    Because LCHF can make it easier to your chosen form of IF. In fact, a lot of people on LCHF find they end up doing a 16:8 type of pattern naturally.

    In other words -- because you can.
This discussion has been closed.