5/2 Diet
Replies
-
JessicaNotGivingUp wrote: »I know someone who does it, however, let's be frank.... You are starving yourself 2 days a week.
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/08/06/a-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting/0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
The thing about some fasting protocols is that calorie restriction on your "up" days shouldn't be the focus. Personally, I have to eat well above my TDEE or else the weight flies off way too fast, and there is some strength loss. Again, I believe fasting should be a lifestyle change,with weight loss being a biproduct of your choices. If you feel like you can stick to fasting while using calorie restriction and you see no adverse affects, then by all means go ahead. But with the hormonal changes that come with fasting, calorie restriction does not have to be a necessity to lose fat, and may slow your metabolism (as shown with calorie restrictive diets over 6 weeks in length)
I've been using IF in one form or another for several years now only to lose weight/maintain weight. I don't really think of it as a lifestyle, but more as a tool that I use to create the correct calorie deficit/balance for my goals. I've been using 16:8IF as part of my maintenance plan for around 3 years now, and I've decided to do a short weight loss phase again, to lose 5ish pounds of summer 'vanity' pounds. I ran my info to figure out my TDEE and then plugged that into the 5:2 format, because I've found for me, it's easier to stick to my calorie deficit with very low calorie days mixed in with higher calorie days, vs lower calorie days 7 days a week. But, I still need to create the correct deficit for my goals. Doing 5:2 Dr. Mosley's way would put my daily average calories at 1,571 a day vs the 1,356 daily average calories I need to lose 1lb a week. My TDEE is 1,856 so I'd lose on Dr. Mosley's numbers, but at a slower pace. Since I can fit in a 1lb deficit a week and still have a sensible amount of calories, I don't see a reason not to go this route.
Sorry OP, we've kind of hijacked your thread
0 -
I used to fast one day a week - it really helped with maintenance and I was feeling great after the fasting days
0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
The thing about some fasting protocols is that calorie restriction on your "up" days shouldn't be the focus. Personally, I have to eat well above my TDEE or else the weight flies off way too fast, and there is some strength loss. Again, I believe fasting should be a lifestyle change,with weight loss being a biproduct of your choices. If you feel like you can stick to fasting while using calorie restriction and you see no adverse affects, then by all means go ahead. But with the hormonal changes that come with fasting, calorie restriction does not have to be a necessity to lose fat, and may slow your metabolism (as shown with calorie restrictive diets over 6 weeks in length)
I personally disagree. I see fasting as a tool rather than a lifestyle, a tool I could use both in weight loss and in maintenance. A very helpful tool. Have a party coming up? No problem, I'll just fast on 500 calories for a day or two and not worry too much about my intake come party day, effectively maintaining my weight instead of gaining. Have a bad appetite week? No problem, I'll just tough it up and fast for a couple of days then not worry too much about my appetite ruining my loss... etc.
Pardon my reading comprehension, but are you advising to eat at maintenance on "up" days? Because that's exactly what people are advising. I don't believe 5:2 has a steep deficit in any way. Say your maintenance is 3000, and you eat 750 calories twice a week effectively creating a deficit of 4500 calories in said week. That's a loss of about 1 1/4 pounds a week, which couldn't be classified as extreme by any stretch of imagination.0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »I'm doing 5/2. I don't average 500 CALs on my fast days, more like 700. I workout alot and find that 500 is just too low for me. On non-fast days I have around 1300 cals. YMMV.
Play with the numbers. Everyone is different.
Um no.......
What 5:2 is - 5 days at MAINTENANCE and 2 days at 500. So you aren't technically doing 5:2 at all unless you are about 4'6" tall. Your daily average for the week (assuming 700) is only 1,128 calories.
Here's how you find maintenance: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
There's some debate about what to do with the 5 non-fasting days. Many people do eat slightly under their maintenance calories on those days, to make up part of the deficit. Dr. Mosley is pretty vague for this part, which has led to some frustration in the 5:2 community.
For me, I'm doing a modified 5:2 plan. I figured out my TDEE/light exercise x7 days-3,500 calories (1lb a week), -700 calories x2 (my 2 fasting days), and then with the leftover calories I divide by 5 days to get my non-fasting number. This gives me 1,618 calories on those days, compared to my TDEE of 1,856. All this works out to an average of 1,355 calories a day
You're right. I don't do 5:2, and I don't call what I do 5:2. I simply zig-zag my calories. My average daily calories aren't that big either (over 50).
BUT, like you I figured out my TDEE and am not using 5:2 as an excuse to eat a 1300 calorie diet PLUS two 700 calorie days. For someone "who works out a lot" this sounds more like a diet + two 700 calorie days, than it does 5:2.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Pardon my reading comprehension, but are you advising to eat at maintenance on "up" days? Because that's exactly what people are advising. I don't believe 5:2 has a steep deficit in any way. Say your maintenance is 3000, and you eat 750 calories twice a week effectively creating a deficit of 4500 calories in said week. That's a loss of about 1 1/4 pounds a week, which couldn't be classified as extreme by any stretch of imagination.
I am not trying to advising anything really. I'm trying to convey they freedom that IF can give. If using 5:2 with a deficit works for you, then by all means do that. If you find something that works for your goals, then do that.
To undersand my perspective, I do 16:8 and eat to a maitenence every day. Yet, I have lost 32 pounds over 3 months, while retaining almost all my mucsle, and going to the gym a few times a week to stimulate my muscles. This is why I do not think it is entirely necessary to obsess over calorie counting whilst fasting is a part of your life.
0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
Pardon my reading comprehension, but are you advising to eat at maintenance on "up" days? Because that's exactly what people are advising. I don't believe 5:2 has a steep deficit in any way. Say your maintenance is 3000, and you eat 750 calories twice a week effectively creating a deficit of 4500 calories in said week. That's a loss of about 1 1/4 pounds a week, which couldn't be classified as extreme by any stretch of imagination.
I am not trying to advising anything really. I'm trying to convey they freedom that IF can give. If using 5:2 with a deficit works for you, then by all means do that. If you find something that works for your goals, then do that.
To undersand my perspective, I do 16:8 and eat to a maitenence every day. Yet, I have lost 32 pounds over 3 months, while retaining almost all my mucsle, and going to the gym a few times a week to stimulate my muscles. This is why I do not think it is entirely necessary to obsess over calorie counting whilst fasting is a part of your life.
You can't eat at maintenance every day and still lose weight.. for weight to be lost, you need to create a deficit. I think I'm still not understanding something. Eating at maintenance by definition means you aren't going to lose or gain any weight. I think you mean that you are losing weight eating until full without counting calories right? This works for some people but not others.0 -
I would die on 500 cals and probably eat my shoes. 1
-
kimdawnhayden wrote: »I would die on 500 cals and probably eat my shoes.
That was actually one of biggest lesson I learned doing my own variation of this diet. Hunger is not the end of the world, and I can actually go without much food longer than I expected. What was more amazing is that after a couple of weeks fast days became quite easy. It took me by surprise.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
You can't eat at maintenance every day and still lose weight.. for weight to be lost, you need to create a deficit. I think I'm still not understanding something. Eating at maintenance by definition means you aren't going to lose or gain any weight. I think you mean that you are losing weight eating until full without counting calories right? This works for some people but not others.
I understand that perspective. But recently mine has changed becasue of IF. Let me explain to the best of my abilities.
My TDEE is ~2600 calories for a 208 pound, 5'9 male.
Everyday I eat at least 2600 calories. It isn't easy but I get it done. Do I obess over calories and count every single one? No. But I've done this whole MFP thing for a while and have a fairly good grasp on how many cals are in food.
If the next point you have is that I must be overestimating calories, and am actually eating at a deficit, then I guess I can't dispute that.
I think the point that we are differing on a bit is the term of weight loss. For pure weight loss (muscle, fat and water), then simply counting CICO is a solid equation. But WEIGHT loss isn't my goal; fat loss is. CICO doesn't calcualte metabolism effects and digestion efficiency very well. That's where I feel the difference comes in with IF. The increase in HGH and increased insulin sensitivity seem to retain the muscle, and ensure the nutriens I eat are being used as efficiently as possible. At the same time, while fasting, the body turns to fats as it's source of energy, which can be measured by ketostix (not the best method, but probably the most cost effective).
This article breaks it down very well: http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/08/06/a-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting/
TL;DR: there is more going on than simply CICO
1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »kimdawnhayden wrote: »I would die on 500 cals and probably eat my shoes.
That was actually one of biggest lesson I learned doing my own variation of this diet. Hunger is not the end of the world, and I can actually go without much food longer than I expected. What was more amazing is that after a couple of weeks fast days became quite easy. It took me by surprise.
I found fasting days to be pretty easy and I've always been a fan of eating as much as possible while losing. I normally ate between 600 and 700 calories. I'd eat 2 boiled eggs, a cup of milk, coffee, and a load of strawberries and veggies for breakfast. Dinner was meat and more veggies. During the day I would drink water and stay busy, which isn't hard. If possible I would schedule more meetings on that day to keep my mind busy. I quit 5:2 for now in order to go on maintenance but I'll use it again in the future.0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
So of course even though it's said eat normal (not pig out, and not eating the worst nutritional foods) for the 5 days - some sort of calorie value is thrown out, of course to base the 25% two days on.
So 2000 for average woman and 2400 average man. Those always seem to be values used whenever averages are referred to. Also means on average not much if any exercise, average means slightly overweight, and average height.
Of course - you start exercising decently, not average anymore. Or if taller or shorter than average too, ect.
You will have changed those average TDEE's.
I'd be surprised if your average weekly TDEE is actually below 2000 if you have any decent amount of exercise being done. If really short, at goal weight, and not much exercise of course it is possible.
Anyway - here is study that lead to book and recommendations. The biggest benefit found in further investigation of groups doing it (not studies with the controls) was that people still lost even though they didn't require the normal study-level of calorie logging and restriction. Just the instruction to eat normal and average on 5 days. Count calories on 2 days.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964/
Of course plenty of other studies on IF in general that show better benefits of the idea of what may appear to be an extreme concept, but all the other time at normal levels allows body to be "reset" or recover better, and in the end gives better results.0 -
Cant think of many things less appealing than starving yourself for over a quarter of your life....0
-
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
So of course even though it's said eat normal (not pig out, and not eating the worst nutritional foods) for the 5 days - some sort of calorie value is thrown out, of course to base the 25% two days on.
So 2000 for average woman and 2400 average man. Those always seem to be values used whenever averages are referred to. Also means on average not much if any exercise, average means slightly overweight, and average height.
Of course - you start exercising decently, not average anymore. Or if taller or shorter than average too, ect.
You will have changed those average TDEE's.
I'd be surprised if your average weekly TDEE is actually below 2000 if you have any decent amount of exercise being done. If really short, at goal weight, and not much exercise of course it is possible.
Anyway - here is study that lead to book and recommendations. The biggest benefit found in further investigation of groups doing it (not studies with the controls) was that people still lost even though they didn't require the normal study-level of calorie logging and restriction. Just the instruction to eat normal and average on 5 days. Count calories on 2 days.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964/
Of course plenty of other studies on IF in general that show better benefits of the idea of what may appear to be an extreme concept, but all the other time at normal levels allows body to be "reset" or recover better, and in the end gives better results.
I lost the extra weight (50ish pounds), with no exercise at all. Exercise just doesn't rock my world like it does for other people Now in maintenance I'm a seasonal walker-I walk 3-5 times a week/1-2 miles per time, during the spring and summer months. I don't do anything during the fall/winter (interestingly enough my last blood work panel was my best one ever and it was taken in October, after I had stopped walking for two months).
My current TDEE factors in the walking, and I'll adjust it down in the fall. I've found my TDEE to be pretty spot on.
0 -
Cant think of many things less appealing than starving yourself for over a quarter of your life....
I can think of many things. For some people, and I am one of them, this actually feels easier than a steady deficit. I can understand that it's not for everyone, but generalizing a thought just because you feel a certain way is a bit silly, especially when the statement is far from accurate. A person could similarly make the erroneous statement that constant calorie restriction is starving and that you are basically starving yourself 100% of the time.
Like some have said above, fast days actually feel easy. They're not the torture you imagine, at least not for me. Keeping a steady deficit was way harder. My appetite varies, so why not ride the wave instead of stubbornly muscling it through until I burn out? If I found a calorie control strategy that drastically reduced my binging, helped me practice maintenance, made social gatherings more enjoyable and was easy for me to boot, why would it not be appealing?4 -
Cant think of many things less appealing than starving yourself for over a quarter of your life....
I'm failing to see how fasting for two days is starving yourself for over a quarter of your life while eating in an equal deficit over seven days is not. If your average calories are 2400 and you eat 600 for two days, you have a 3600 deficit over the course of a week. If you eat a daily 500 calorie deficit you have a weekly 3500 deficit. Very similar levels of deficit. Your body is not starving by eating a low level of calories two days out of seven. In addition, you do not continue to eat in an overall weekly deficit your entire life. At some point you hit your goal weight and then you can either stop fasting altogether or raise your calories on the other days or fast one day.
3 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
So of course even though it's said eat normal (not pig out, and not eating the worst nutritional foods) for the 5 days - some sort of calorie value is thrown out, of course to base the 25% two days on.
So 2000 for average woman and 2400 average man. Those always seem to be values used whenever averages are referred to. Also means on average not much if any exercise, average means slightly overweight, and average height.
Of course - you start exercising decently, not average anymore. Or if taller or shorter than average too, ect.
You will have changed those average TDEE's.
I'd be surprised if your average weekly TDEE is actually below 2000 if you have any decent amount of exercise being done. If really short, at goal weight, and not much exercise of course it is possible.
Anyway - here is study that lead to book and recommendations. The biggest benefit found in further investigation of groups doing it (not studies with the controls) was that people still lost even though they didn't require the normal study-level of calorie logging and restriction. Just the instruction to eat normal and average on 5 days. Count calories on 2 days.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964/
Of course plenty of other studies on IF in general that show better benefits of the idea of what may appear to be an extreme concept, but all the other time at normal levels allows body to be "reset" or recover better, and in the end gives better results.
I lost the extra weight (50ish pounds), with no exercise at all. Exercise just doesn't rock my world like it does for other people Now in maintenance I'm a seasonal walker-I walk 3-5 times a week/1-2 miles per time, during the spring and summer months. I don't do anything during the fall/winter (interestingly enough my last blood work panel was my best one ever and it was taken in October, after I had stopped walking for two months).
My current TDEE factors in the walking, and I'll adjust it down in the fall. I've found my TDEE to be pretty spot on.
FINALLY found someone where sportd are NOT existing in their life except for walking....and I had been always criticized by ppl in here for not doing so...that's why I tried to fit in some sports in my weeks but I can hardely afford it0 -
Fasting is awesome. I've done all sorts of fasts: IF, 5/2, once a week, extended fasts, etc. It's proven to give the body and digestive system a break, and helps it to go into a sort of "super" repair mode. I've also noticed that my REM cycles kick up quite a bit when I fast, so that's always a plus.
I have read, though, that the whole 16:8 cycle isn't optimal for women, so I would definitely recommend 5/2.
Good luck!0 -
ralostaz2000 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
So of course even though it's said eat normal (not pig out, and not eating the worst nutritional foods) for the 5 days - some sort of calorie value is thrown out, of course to base the 25% two days on.
So 2000 for average woman and 2400 average man. Those always seem to be values used whenever averages are referred to. Also means on average not much if any exercise, average means slightly overweight, and average height.
Of course - you start exercising decently, not average anymore. Or if taller or shorter than average too, ect.
You will have changed those average TDEE's.
I'd be surprised if your average weekly TDEE is actually below 2000 if you have any decent amount of exercise being done. If really short, at goal weight, and not much exercise of course it is possible.
Anyway - here is study that lead to book and recommendations. The biggest benefit found in further investigation of groups doing it (not studies with the controls) was that people still lost even though they didn't require the normal study-level of calorie logging and restriction. Just the instruction to eat normal and average on 5 days. Count calories on 2 days.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964/
Of course plenty of other studies on IF in general that show better benefits of the idea of what may appear to be an extreme concept, but all the other time at normal levels allows body to be "reset" or recover better, and in the end gives better results.
I lost the extra weight (50ish pounds), with no exercise at all. Exercise just doesn't rock my world like it does for other people Now in maintenance I'm a seasonal walker-I walk 3-5 times a week/1-2 miles per time, during the spring and summer months. I don't do anything during the fall/winter (interestingly enough my last blood work panel was my best one ever and it was taken in October, after I had stopped walking for two months).
My current TDEE factors in the walking, and I'll adjust it down in the fall. I've found my TDEE to be pretty spot on.
FINALLY found someone where sportd are NOT existing in their life except for walking....and I had been always criticized by ppl in here for not doing so...that's why I tried to fit in some sports in my weeks but I can hardely afford it
There's actually quite a few people here who don't exercise or just do light exercise like walking. But, yeah, we're usually pretty quiet due to the backlash that often happens (I've been called lazy, unhealthy, a liar etc, from other MFP members).2 -
Don't tell about the backlashes or LECTURES given to me about that...because really I don't feel lazy at all...nor I am a couch-lover...I hate setting and whenever I find myself free I just go to the malls with the kids and walk...walk...walk...I lost my first 11 lbs with Dukan Diet...but I found it quiet hard for not eating some carbs...so I switched to IIFYM.ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ralostaz2000 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
So of course even though it's said eat normal (not pig out, and not eating the worst nutritional foods) for the 5 days - some sort of calorie value is thrown out, of course to base the 25% two days on.
So 2000 for average woman and 2400 average man. Those always seem to be values used whenever averages are referred to. Also means on average not much if any exercise, average means slightly overweight, and average height.
Of course - you start exercising decently, not average anymore. Or if taller or shorter than average too, ect.
You will have changed those average TDEE's.
I'd be surprised if your average weekly TDEE is actually below 2000 if you have any decent amount of exercise being done. If really short, at goal weight, and not much exercise of course it is possible.
Anyway - here is study that lead to book and recommendations. The biggest benefit found in further investigation of groups doing it (not studies with the controls) was that people still lost even though they didn't require the normal study-level of calorie logging and restriction. Just the instruction to eat normal and average on 5 days. Count calories on 2 days.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964/
Of course plenty of other studies on IF in general that show better benefits of the idea of what may appear to be an extreme concept, but all the other time at normal levels allows body to be "reset" or recover better, and in the end gives better results.
I lost the extra weight (50ish pounds), with no exercise at all. Exercise just doesn't rock my world like it does for other people Now in maintenance I'm a seasonal walker-I walk 3-5 times a week/1-2 miles per time, during the spring and summer months. I don't do anything during the fall/winter (interestingly enough my last blood work panel was my best one ever and it was taken in October, after I had stopped walking for two months).
My current TDEE factors in the walking, and I'll adjust it down in the fall. I've found my TDEE to be pretty spot on.
FINALLY found someone where sportd are NOT existing in their life except for walking....and I had been always criticized by ppl in here for not doing so...that's why I tried to fit in some sports in my weeks but I can hardely afford it
There's actually quite a few people here who don't exercise or just do light exercise like walking. But, yeah, we're usually pretty quiet due to the backlash that often happens (I've been called lazy, unhealthy, a liar etc, from other MFP members).
2 -
I have been doing 5:2 for 3 weeks now (getting married in 3 and a half) and have not lost an ounce! All other factors are the same; I walk the dog every day, have a PT session once a week (an hour), have 2x one hour kickboxing sessions, scuba diving, a one hour bootcamp and then I usually run 10km once a week. On my fast days (sticking to around 500 calories - 513 today) I don't exercise (except for the walking), I exercise on every other day and eat between 1400 nd 1800 calories on those days. The only benefit I have found is that it forces me to get an early night (to speed up breakfast time). Would like to lose half a stone by 28th May
0 -
ralostaz2000 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Nothing like taking the benefits of a certain plan from a research study, and tweaking it because dang it - I just know better and want to lose faster.
And to that I'll add YMMV - but I'd sure suggest someone try the plan as the study showed great success with and see how that goes first before deciding you just need to lose weight even faster and tweaking some or all the benefits right out of it.
Could you elaborate please? I'm not aware of any study that's been done on 5:2 specifically. It was a diet plan created by Dr. Mosley.
I've been doing IF in one form or another since 2012. I've done 5:2IF as laid out by Dr. Mosley in his BBC documentary/book. It's the plan I used for the transition period between my active weight loss phase/maintenance phase. If you read the book though, Dr. Mosley's pretty vague on the 5 'up' days. He actually recommends women eating around 2,000 calories on those days. Since my TDEE is below that now, it wouldn't make sense to follow that advice as it would negate some of the deficit I'm trying to obtain.
And I'm not the only one who's run into this issue. If you hang out at the big 5:2 site (not connected to MFP), this is a common complaint because the higher 5 days are causing some people to stall/not lose. There's nothing wrong with using the idea of 5:2 as a framework, but using your TDEE to figure out your actual numbers. All said and done 5:2 is just a trademarked way of zig zagging calories
So of course even though it's said eat normal (not pig out, and not eating the worst nutritional foods) for the 5 days - some sort of calorie value is thrown out, of course to base the 25% two days on.
So 2000 for average woman and 2400 average man. Those always seem to be values used whenever averages are referred to. Also means on average not much if any exercise, average means slightly overweight, and average height.
Of course - you start exercising decently, not average anymore. Or if taller or shorter than average too, ect.
You will have changed those average TDEE's.
I'd be surprised if your average weekly TDEE is actually below 2000 if you have any decent amount of exercise being done. If really short, at goal weight, and not much exercise of course it is possible.
Anyway - here is study that lead to book and recommendations. The biggest benefit found in further investigation of groups doing it (not studies with the controls) was that people still lost even though they didn't require the normal study-level of calorie logging and restriction. Just the instruction to eat normal and average on 5 days. Count calories on 2 days.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964/
Of course plenty of other studies on IF in general that show better benefits of the idea of what may appear to be an extreme concept, but all the other time at normal levels allows body to be "reset" or recover better, and in the end gives better results.
I lost the extra weight (50ish pounds), with no exercise at all. Exercise just doesn't rock my world like it does for other people Now in maintenance I'm a seasonal walker-I walk 3-5 times a week/1-2 miles per time, during the spring and summer months. I don't do anything during the fall/winter (interestingly enough my last blood work panel was my best one ever and it was taken in October, after I had stopped walking for two months).
My current TDEE factors in the walking, and I'll adjust it down in the fall. I've found my TDEE to be pretty spot on.
FINALLY found someone where sportd are NOT existing in their life except for walking....and I had been always criticized by ppl in here for not doing so...that's why I tried to fit in some sports in my weeks but I can hardely afford it
Don't worry, I'm another one who's only exercise is walking
I'm happy and losing weight, so it's working for me. 1 -
I have been doing 5:2 for 3 weeks now (getting married in 3 and a half) and have not lost an ounce! All other factors are the same; I walk the dog every day, have a PT session once a week (an hour), have 2x one hour kickboxing sessions, scuba diving, a one hour bootcamp and then I usually run 10km once a week. On my fast days (sticking to around 500 calories - 513 today) I don't exercise (except for the walking), I exercise on every other day and eat between 1400 nd 1800 calories on those days. The only benefit I have found is that it forces me to get an early night (to speed up breakfast time). Would like to lose half a stone by 28th May
You aren't doing 5:2 diet then - because with all that activity, I doubt greatly your 5 days are really that low for maintenance.
That's what the 5 days are supposed to be - maintenance level eating, not at a deficit.
Your body has probably freaked out, stressed out, and more than adapted and compensated for the lack of enough calories.
Wouldn't be surprised if you got tired more early on the fast days anyway, or other low eating days for that matter, and went to bed early even without the hunger being a reason.
Body going to make you tired to move less to burn less.
Even if not for sleep - it's probably doing it anyway.
And then stress related water weight gain, shows up mainly around tummy, going to offset whatever could actually be happened slower than possible.1 -
I have been doing 5:2 for 3 weeks now (getting married in 3 and a half) and have not lost an ounce! All other factors are the same; I walk the dog every day, have a PT session once a week (an hour), have 2x one hour kickboxing sessions, scuba diving, a one hour bootcamp and then I usually run 10km once a week. On my fast days (sticking to around 500 calories - 513 today) I don't exercise (except for the walking), I exercise on every other day and eat between 1400 nd 1800 calories on those days. The only benefit I have found is that it forces me to get an early night (to speed up breakfast time). Would like to lose half a stone by 28th May
You aren't doing 5:2 diet then - because with all that activity, I doubt greatly your 5 days are really that low for maintenance.
That's what the 5 days are supposed to be - maintenance level eating, not at a deficit.
Your body has probably freaked out, stressed out, and more than adapted and compensated for the lack of enough calories.
Wouldn't be surprised if you got tired more early on the fast days anyway, or other low eating days for that matter, and went to bed early even without the hunger being a reason.
Body going to make you tired to move less to burn less.
Even if not for sleep - it's probably doing it anyway.
And then stress related water weight gain, shows up mainly around tummy, going to offset whatever could actually be happened slower than possible.
1400-1800 is what I naturally eat (obvously there are the odd days, special occasions, where i eat 2500+) I just threw in the 2 500 calorie days to try and shake it up a bit as I had plateued. I thought stress was meant to make you thinner anyway
I definitely do not carry weight around my tummy - I have a 26 inch waist. Just wish I could tailor my weight loss (if I have any more) to my legs!
0 -
I have been doing 5:2 for 3 weeks now (getting married in 3 and a half) and have not lost an ounce! All other factors are the same; I walk the dog every day, have a PT session once a week (an hour), have 2x one hour kickboxing sessions, scuba diving, a one hour bootcamp and then I usually run 10km once a week. On my fast days (sticking to around 500 calories - 513 today) I don't exercise (except for the walking), I exercise on every other day and eat between 1400 nd 1800 calories on those days. The only benefit I have found is that it forces me to get an early night (to speed up breakfast time). Would like to lose half a stone by 28th May
You aren't doing 5:2 diet then - because with all that activity, I doubt greatly your 5 days are really that low for maintenance.
That's what the 5 days are supposed to be - maintenance level eating, not at a deficit.
Your body has probably freaked out, stressed out, and more than adapted and compensated for the lack of enough calories.
Wouldn't be surprised if you got tired more early on the fast days anyway, or other low eating days for that matter, and went to bed early even without the hunger being a reason.
Body going to make you tired to move less to burn less.
Even if not for sleep - it's probably doing it anyway.
And then stress related water weight gain, shows up mainly around tummy, going to offset whatever could actually be happened slower than possible.
1400-1800 is what I naturally eat (obvously there are the odd days, special occasions, where i eat 2500+) I just threw in the 2 500 calorie days to try and shake it up a bit as I had plateued. I thought stress was meant to make you thinner anyway I definitely do not carry weight around my tummy - I have a 26 inch waist. Just wish I could tailor my weight loss (if I have any more) to my legs!
You're quite lean, so your loss is likely to be slow and can very easily be masked by any water weight fluctuations or logging inaccuracies. Stress and menstrual cycle could also do a number on your water retention.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions