Is a fast diet unhealthy? 500 cals a day?

aimeerace wrote: »

It is worth noting that the 5:2 diet isn't aimed at weight loss. It was for health benefits. The weight loss is just a bonus!

The 5:2 diet IS aimed at weight loss. Go to the website of the guy who created it, and the whole thing is geared towards weight loss and keeping the weight off. Weight loss isn't a bonus; the good health benefits come with being a healthier weight. Lower cholesterol, BP, blood sugar, etc... are all improved by simply losing weight. I've noticed a tendency on 5:2 message boards that people make this claim that 5:2 isn't about weight loss, but that "fasting" is the real key that has magical properties that make you healthy. A.) 5:2 isn't technically a fast anyways, since you still eat. B.) It is no different than people losing weight by a daily deficit, other than a different means of controlling it.

If you don't believe me, check out the website of the guy who started the 5:2 plan.

TimothyFish wrote: »

Given your weight, I would guess that you would lose somewhere between 1 and 2 lbs of fat over the 10 days, and possibly some muscle to go with it. A bad diet for ten days probably won't kill you. If it would, more people would die while on vacation. But why mess with it? Just eat at 1200 for ten weeks and you're done.

Regarding the bolded part, for "bad diet," I understood this to mean overeating as that is what people commonly do while on vacation, but others are interpreting it as under-eating. Would you please clarify?

aimeerace wrote: »

I've read his book and followed the plan. So erm I don't need to thank you. Fasting is first and foremost about the health benefits.

You don't need to thank me? Huh? Explain what you consider the health benefits of "fasting" that aren't really the health benefits of becoming a healthy weight. Also explain how the website I linked mentions fat loss as the main goal. Go the FAQs and read.

"As well as offering a fresh approach for people trying to lose weight, IF has been developed by scientists wanting to help people reduce their risk of developing diabetes, dementia and cancer
IF has been most extensively studied in volunteers who are obese or overweight. In a recent study of 115 overweight women, those who restricted their calories two days a week lost more fat and had a greater improvement in biomarkers that relate to breast cancer risk than women doing conventional daily dieting."

Then:

"The benefits in people who are not overweight are less clear because there have been fewer studies."

Seems to me it's a program to help people who are overweight. Again, fasting itself isn't some magical health cure.

Eating 500 calories a day for 10 days is unlikely to cause any health problems. Most likely you'll just be hungry all the time, lose a lot of water weight, some fat, some muscle. On day 11, you'll likely start gaining the water back quickly. And probably gain back most of the fat over the next month or so.

kshama2001 wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

Given your weight, I would guess that you would lose somewhere between 1 and 2 lbs of fat over the 10 days, and possibly some muscle to go with it. A bad diet for ten days probably won't kill you. If it would, more people would die while on vacation. But why mess with it? Just eat at 1200 for ten weeks and you're done.

Regarding the bolded part, for "bad diet," I understood this to mean overeating as that is what people commonly do while on vacation, but others are interpreting it as under-eating. Would you please clarify?

I assume he meant overeating too, but if so I don't see the relevance. Why would overeating for a week or two kill you?

Maybe he assumes that on vacation you eat nutrient free and that's the same, but it's not the same and not true anyway. My last vacation was in Hawaii and I ate lots of delicious food, much of which was quite nutrient-rich. (And I ate lots of calories too, true, but I was also biking a lot.) But even apart from that unless one vacations by basically surviving on booze (which is a weird thing for Tim to assume--are we all on some stereotypical MTV spring break when vacationing?), you are going to be getting food that will sustain you.

asflatasapancake wrote: »

aimeerace wrote: »

asflatasapancake wrote: »

aimeerace wrote: »

astralpictures wrote: »

aimeerace wrote: »

It is worth noting that the 5:2 diet isn't aimed at weight loss. It was for health benefits. The weight loss is just a bonus!

The 5:2 diet IS aimed at weight loss. Go to the website of the guy who created it, and the whole thing is geared towards weight loss and keeping the weight off. Weight loss isn't a bonus; the good health benefits come with being a healthier weight. Lower cholesterol, BP, blood sugar, etc... are all improved by simply losing weight. I've noticed a tendency on 5:2 message boards that people make this claim that 5:2 isn't about weight loss, but that "fasting" is the real key that has magical properties that make you healthy. A.) 5:2 isn't technically a fast anyways, since you still eat. B.) It is no different than people losing weight by a daily deficit, other than a different means of controlling it.

If you don't believe me, check out the website of the guy who started the 5:2 plan.

I've read his book and followed the plan. So erm I don't need to thank you. Fasting is first and foremost about the health benefits.

There may be health benefits associated with fasting according to this article:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/expert-answers/fasting-diet/FAQ-20058334

It also says it is not conclusive evidence and more studies need to be done. I'll stick with a healthy diet and regular exercise.

I don't follow 5:2 any more. It was another faddy load of bumpkiss. I was just trying to point out to those who assume that 5:2 is primarily about weight loss. It isn't. I have lost more following CICO than I ever did doing 5;2, Weight Watchers, Stupid VLCD's and god knows what else. Until we educate, we can never learn. Shrug.

Ok. I was just curious about the 5:2. I would never eat that low of calories in any given day. I remember when I was a moron, ok I'm still a moron, when I was more of a moron starting out, I ate around 1200 calories for 3 days straight. I was entranced by the magic 'You will way "blah" in you at like this for 5 weeks' message. I can tell you, I felt like utter crap. Dizzy, sick, etc. Having said that, I would think that as long as someone is meeting a healthy calorie deficit by the end of the week, they would lose weight. How sustainable that would be and how they would feel along the way would be a concern of mine. For some, it may work. Not this cat.

It was a load of rubbish. I think we are all moronic at points when we see flashing "You too could lose 200lbs simply by taking this pill or following this plan" Humans are fickle creatures for the most part. I'm glad I came here and read how REAL people have lost great amounts of weights by eating normally just at a deficit. It's refreshing and so much easier to live by.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I will say that I don't think eating 500 calories for 10 days would kill you either, but I don't see it as likely to accomplish anything, and it could create some food issues, especially if one already has tendencies that way.

Saying that 500 calories of peanut butter would be pretty nice!

I'm fairly certain I would die on this diet. Or someone else would because I'd be past hangry into murderous. I eat 500 calories in 1/3 of a day. And I want more than that...so yeah. No.