The five two diet

Adam4850 · 16-06-2014 10:42pm #1

So considering starting up the five two diet in the morning anyone here done it before?
I want to cut from 94kg to 83kg.

bytheglass · 16-06-2014 11:31pm

I've been doing it for the last 6 weeks, lost 4kg in that time and I'm very happy with my steady progress. I find it easy to maintain, 500 cals is not difficult to stick to once you have a plan in place. Best of luck with it

Adam4850 · 17-06-2014 10:15am

Fair play, I usually have a fast metabolism so i will probably drop a tonne in a month i think. Thank you and same to yourself.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 10:19am

You don't need to do 5:2 to cut weight.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 10:34am

runawaybishop wrote: »

You don't need to do 5:2 to cut weight.

MASSIVE health benefits to it though. As long as you don't take it to the extreme or binge on crap your fasting days I think it sounds great. I would be very hesitant to advise anyone to take it up though as I think a lot of people would be liable to develop unhealthy eating habits out of it, it might be a bit to much if you are on a big calorie deficit on the non fasting days and I wouldn't imagine it's very conducive to intense activity ie. football, weight/powerlifting etc.

syklops · 17-06-2014 10:43am

generic2012 wrote: »

MASSIVE health benefits to it though.

Can you elaborate on the massive health benefits?

In my experience there is only one silver bullet when it comes to dieting and thats eating well and getting lots of exercise.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 10:50am

generic2012 wrote: »

MASSIVE health benefits to it though. As long as you don't take it to the extreme or binge on crap your fasting days I think it sounds great. I would be very hesitant to advise anyone to take it up though as I think a lot of people would be liable to develop unhealthy eating habits out of it, it might be a bit to much if you are on a big calorie deficit on the non fasting days and I wouldn't imagine it's very conducive to intense activity ie. football, weight/powerlifting etc.

I didn't see the op mentioning anything apart from a desire to cut weight, and 5:2 isn't a requirement for that.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:01am

syklops wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the massive health benefits?

Health benefits associated with eating less in general - but these don't just apply to 5:2

Specific benefits are linked to some mad skinny gene that makes you live longer, might only been shown in animal studies though.

Its just a fad diet tbh and not a very sustainable one, it often leads to binging and general lethargy.

syklops wrote: »

In my experience there is only one silver bullet when it comes to dieting and thats eating well and getting lots of exercise.

^^ THIS.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:02am

runawaybishop wrote: »

I didn't see the op mentioning anything apart from a desire to cut weight, and 5:2 isn't a requirement for that.

I didn't see the OP asking if it was a requirement.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:03am

generic2012 wrote: »

I didn't see the OP asking if it was a requirement.

Ok, i was just being polite. Let me rephrase - 5:2 is balls.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:03am

runawaybishop wrote: »

Ok, i was just being polite. Let me rephrase - 5:2 is balls.

Why so?

Adam4850 · 17-06-2014 11:03am

Well a big benefit is it helps to fight particular diseases, and for me going from about 3500 to 600 is quite a bit.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:05am

generic2012 wrote: »

Why so?

See above

Adam4850 wrote: »

Well a big benefit is it helps to fight particular diseases, and for me going from about 3500 to 600 is quite a bit.

What diseases? Any studies I've seen have been animal tests and are not to be taken as gospel.

Adam4850 · 17-06-2014 11:06am

I know i don't need it to cut weight but i said i would try it out anyway and see how i get on after 2 weeks.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:13am

syklops wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the massive health benefits?

Reductions in fat mass, IGF-1, blood glucose levels
Increases in neuron production from stem cells, in energy during fast (beneficial hormones such as adrenaline and the like are released), insulin sensitivity and nutrient partitioning in general, increased metabolism during fast.
Better lipid and cholesterol blood profiles
Psychological benefits in terms of appetite control and most people would enjoy less time spent cooking and eating.

syklops wrote: »

In my experience there is only one silver bullet when it comes to dieting and thats eating well and getting lots of exercise.

Surely you aren't saying eating well and exercise isn't mutually exclusive of the 5:2 diet? If you are that's a false dichotomy. The two can go hand in hand.

syklops · 17-06-2014 11:14am

Anyone I know who did it got hunger pains, mood swings and lack of energy on their fast days, and had a feeling of "I deserve it" on non fast days meaning they often ate more than their allowance.

If you want to lose weight, make one or two small changes to your diet. You don't need to change your entire eating routine, just little changes. Some people find dropping or cutting down bread from their diet sees progress quite quickly. Swapping the breaded chicken roll for a light chicken salad was one of the best things I did. Saved me inches on my waistline and gave me more energy in the afternoon/evening.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:14am

runawaybishop wrote: »

See above

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific if your not avoiding the question.

Adam4850 · 17-06-2014 11:18am

The fasting can help us to live longer and even ward off mental illnesses like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
I have read about this off about 8 websites, i don't think theu are all wrong to be honest.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:20am

generic2012 wrote: »

Reductions in fat mass, IGF-1, blood glucose levels
Increases in neuron production from stem cells, in energy during fast (beneficial hormones such as adrenaline and the like are released), insulin sensitivity and nutrient partitioning in general, increased metabolism during fast.
Better lipid and cholesterol blood profiles
Psychological benefits in terms of appetite control and most people would enjoy less time spent cooking and eating.

Aren't most of those items linked to reduced calorie intake in general and most of the stuff linked to IF was linked to an every other day reduction, not a 5:2 format.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:20am

generic2012 wrote: »

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific if your not avoiding the question.

Lethargy and binging. I thought i made it pretty clear.

Oryx · 17-06-2014 11:25am

generic2012 wrote: »

Reductions in fat mass, IGF-1, blood glucose levels
Increases in neuron production from stem cells, in energy during fast (beneficial hormones such as adrenaline and the like are released), insulin sensitivity and nutrient partitioning in general, increased metabolism during fast.
Better lipid and cholesterol blood profiles

Can you link to backup these claims?

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:33am

runawaybishop wrote: »

Aren't most of those items linked to reduced calorie intake in general and most of the stuff linked to IF was linked to an every other day reduction, not a 5:2 format.

A lot of them are but if 5:2 is an easier way to do it for some people why say it's bad? There's a sense of elitism and arrogance (not directed at anyone here just in general!) towards diet and exercise, for some reason people seem to think it has to be done the hard way. If the goal is to be healthy does it matter how you get there?

From what I can see intermittent fasting (IF) has unique benefits such as neuron production (making more brain cells), the natural production of adrenaline and norephedrine, and nutrient partitioning effects that aren't possible (or at least as profound) with a general reduction of intake of calories. Many of the benefits from calorie reduction are from calorie restriction which for men, I think, is a daily intake of less than 1,500 calories. I know if I was doing it I'd definitely take the big hit on calories twice a week rather than 1,500 every day.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:36am

runawaybishop wrote: »

Lethargy and binging. I thought i made it pretty clear.

Thought I made it clear when I said 'As long as you don't take it to the extreme or binge on crap your fasting days I think it sounds great. I would be very hesitant to advise anyone to take it up though as I think a lot of people would be liable to develop unhealthy eating habits out of it...' but obviously that wasn't clear enough for some people.

Your claim of lethargy has no physiological basis in reality, unless it's a psychological effect of people who want an excuse for giving it up.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:42am

generic2012 wrote: »

A lot of them are but if 5:2 is an easier way to do it for some people why say it's bad? There's a sense of elitism and arrogance (not directed at anyone here just in general!) towards diet and exercise, for some reason people seem to think it has to be done the hard way. If the goal is to be healthy does it matter how you get there?

From what I can see intermittent fasting (IF) has unique benefits such as neuron production (making more brain cells), the natural production of adrenaline and norephedrine, and nutrient partitioning effects that aren't possible (or at least as profound) with a general reduction of intake of calories. Many of the benefits from calorie reduction are from calorie restriction which for men, I think, is a daily intake of less than 1,500 calories. I know if I was doing it I'd definitely take the big hit on calories twice a week rather than 1,500 every day.

The studies were not conducted on a 5:2 restriction though but in an every other day restriction. Correct me if I am wrong about this.

generic2012 wrote: »

Thought I made it clear when I said 'As long as you don't take it to the extreme or binge on crap your fasting days I think it sounds great. I would be very hesitant to advise anyone to take it up though as I think a lot of people would be liable to develop unhealthy eating habits out of it...' but obviously that wasn't clear enough for some people.

Your claim of lethargy has no physiological basis in reality, unless it's a psychological effect of people who want an excuse for giving it up.

Nah, I agree with your first paragraph alright.

syklops · 17-06-2014 11:42am

generic2012 wrote: »

Psychological benefits in terms of appetite control and most people would enjoy less time spent cooking and eating.

Cooking perhaps if you don't enjoy cooking. I think few people would enjoy eating less.

generic2012 wrote: »

Surely you aren't saying eating well and exercise isn't mutually exclusive of the 5:2 diet? If you are that's a false dichotomy. The two can go hand in hand.

Of course I'm not saying that. But if you are eating well and getting plenty of exercise, you don't need the hassle of fasting two days a week. Just keep eating healthily and keep up the exercise.

seamus · 17-06-2014 11:50am

runawaybishop wrote: »

Lethargy and binging. I thought i made it pretty clear.

Ultimately the key to weight loss is doing what works for you. The basic principle of eating less universally works, but how people accomplish that varies and really the most effective diet regime is the one that you can comfortably maintain for the period you want.

This is probably why some people get almost religious about their favourite diet; it works so well for them, why isn't everyone doing it this way?

5:2 is fine, if it works for you, if you understand what you're doing and like you say, you don't binge after a fasting day and you learn to deal with any lethargy or extreme hunger.

Some people might find the on/off nature of the 5:2 diet easier to manage. Rather than try to cut 500kcal out of every days' meals, you basically front-load the calories savings into two days.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:51am

Oryx wrote: »

Can you link to backup these claims?

I've included reviews and meta-analysis to cover the most amount with the least links.
http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/ (looks bad because its from lift-heavy but it is a literature review by an MD, it will save you having to buy it)

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302013000200017

http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/6/2128

There are plenty more out there too.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:53am

generic2012 wrote: »

I've included reviews and meta-analysis to cover the most amount with the least links.
http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/ (looks bad because its from lift-heavy but it is a literature review by an MD, it will save you having to buy it)

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302013000200017

http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/6/2128

There are plenty more out there too.

Heres one from the NHS. the conclusion is that no where near enough study has been done on it.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-the-5-2-intermittent-fasting-diet-work.aspx

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:53am

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately the key to weight loss is doing what works for you. The basic principle of eating less universally works, but how people accomplish that varies and really the most effective diet regime is the one that you can comfortably maintain for the period you want.

This is probably why some people get almost religious about their favourite diet; it works so well for them, why isn't everyone doing it this way?

5:2 is fine, if it works for you, if you understand what you're doing and like you say, you don't binge after a fasting day and you learn to deal with any lethargy or extreme hunger.

Some people might find the on/off nature of the 5:2 diet easier to manage. Rather than try to cut 500kcal out of every days' meals, you basically front-load the calories savings into two days.

Exactly (apart from lethargy!!).

'This is probably why some people get almost religious about their favourite diet; it works so well for them, why isn't everyone doing it this way?' - Great line, I don't do 5:2 but it has great merit. For some reason people can't seem to say something they're not doing is good.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:53am

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately the key to weight loss is doing what works for you. The basic principle of eating less universally works, but how people accomplish that varies and really the most effective diet regime is the one that you can comfortably maintain for the period you want.

This is probably why some people get almost religious about their favourite diet; it works so well for them, why isn't everyone doing it this way?

5:2 is fine, if it works for you, if you understand what you're doing and like you say, you don't binge after a fasting day and you learn to deal with any lethargy or extreme hunger.

Some people might find the on/off nature of the 5:2 diet easier to manage. Rather than try to cut 500kcal out of every days' meals, you basically front-load the calories savings into two days.

If it works for you is fine, attributing unproven benefits isn't.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:55am

generic2012 wrote: »

Exactly (apart from lethargy!!).

'This is probably why some people get almost religious about their favourite diet; it works so well for them, why isn't everyone doing it this way?' - Great line, I don't do 5:2 but it has great merit. For some reason people can't seem to say something they're not doing is good.

I do IF actually. :pac:

seamus · 17-06-2014 11:55am

runawaybishop wrote: »

If it works for you is fine, attributing unproven benefits isn't.

Agreed, but then you too made unproven claims about it causing binging and lethergy

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 11:56am

seamus wrote: »

Agreed, but then you too made unproven claims about it causing binging and lethergy

Ah heyore.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 11:58am

runawaybishop wrote: »

The studies were not conducted on a 5:2 restriction though but in an every other day restriction. Correct me if I am wrong about this.

They were done on intermittent fasting of which 5:2 is a method of implementing, I don't want to seem dickish but what you're looking for isn't always possible to do in science. Even the studies that seem small take massive amounts of time and money, they are about bang for buck. It's easier to extrapolate data from these types of trials. In dietary experiments animal studies are often best due to people lying or confabulating about their intakes etc. 5:2 diet is a money making diet, there is no reason to study this method specifically. It would be handy for us but it's easy to see the benefits that are probably to be gained from the growing evidence we already have.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 12:02pm

generic2012 wrote: »

They were done on intermittent fasting of which 5:2 is a method of implementing, I don't want to seem dickish but what you're looking for isn't always possible to do in science. Even the studies that seem small take massive amounts of time and money, they are about bang for buck. It's easier to extrapolate data from these types of trials. In dietary experiments animal studies are often best due to people lying or confabulating about their intakes etc. 5:2 diet is a money making diet, there is no reason to study this method specifically. It would be handy for us but it's easy to see the benefits that are probably to be gained from the growing evidence we already have.

5:2 can be/is very different to a regular form of IF such as 18:6. I dont agree that studies exploring the bodys adaptation to regular fasting periods are directly transferable to irregular fasting periods.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 12:06pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Heres one from the NHS. the conclusion is that no where near enough study has been done on it.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-the-5-2-intermittent-fasting-diet-work.aspx

Well done. I have yet to see a paper on anything (beneficial) that said enough study has been done on a subject. Some journals even ban the phrase 'more study is needed' in any papers they accept.

runawaybishop wrote: »

I do IF actually. :pac:

Well done. Just to let you know when I say 'people', I don't mean you.

runawaybishop wrote: »

I dont agree that studies exploring the bodys adaptation to regular fasting periods are directly transferable to irregular fasting periods.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It's a physiological process, why wouldn't it be transferable? What do you mean by regular and irregular fasting by the way?

Edit: Just looked at your link, it's just an article, maybe something peer reviewed would be of benefit to your claims, especially lethargy.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 12:14pm

generic2012 wrote: »

Well done. I have yet to see a paper on anything (beneficial) that said enough study has been done on a subject. Some journals even ban the phrase 'more study is needed' in any papers they accept.

There is feck all study performed on 5:2 in general, even the wiki article mentions this.

generic2012 wrote: »

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It's a physiological process, why wouldn't it be transferable? What do you mean by regular and irregular fasting by the way?

Edit: Just looked at your link, it's just an article, maybe something peer reviewed would be of benefit to your claims, especially lethargy.

Results on IF are not directly transferable to 5:2 as it is not regular, whereas IF should be. Fasting at the weekend, or every 3 and then 4 days is not the same as fasting every 16 hours on a regular basis.

You want peer reviewed studies on why not eatign can make you lethargic or binge? Fook off

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 1:25pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

There is feck all study performed on 5:2 in general, even the wiki article mentions this.

Results on IF are not directly transferable to 5:2 as it is not regular, whereas IF should be. Fasting at the weekend, or every 3 and then 4 days is not the same as fasting every 16 hours on a regular basis.

You want peer reviewed studies on why not eatign can make you lethargic or binge? Fook off

So you say that 'feck all study' (which is not the case) is not enough to verify the benefits of fasting, using wikipedia as a reference, ignoring the references I've given that proves contrary your opinion and then say your obtuse claims are acceptable without reference?

I don't where you pulled 16 hours out of? 5:2 is regular - pick two days a week to fast, eg Sunday and Wednesday and do it every week. I don't see how that isn't regular.

You're bordering on zealotry, looking for impossible specificity of data to prove a well established point and then making your own claims with no data is the sign of a very simple man so I'll leave you to it.

Bruno26 · 17-06-2014 1:39pm

To the op- what happens when you stop the 5:2 diet and put the weight back on?
Have you considered removing sugar and grain from your diet instead?

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 1:43pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

To the op- what happens when you stop the 5:2 diet and put the weight back on?
Have you considered removing sugar and grain from your diet instead?

HAHAHAHA! Brilliant.....

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 2:08pm

generic2012 wrote: »

So you say that 'feck all study' (which is not the case) is not enough to verify the benefits of fasting, using wikipedia as a reference, ignoring the references I've given that proves contrary your opinion and then say your obtuse claims are acceptable without reference?

I don't where you pulled 16 hours out of? 5:2 is regular - pick two days a week to fast, eg Sunday and Wednesday and do it every week. I don't see how that isn't regular.

You're bordering on zealotry, looking for impossible specificity of data to prove a well established point and then making your own claims with no data is the sign of a very simple man so I'll leave you to it.

16:8 is a very common IF period.

The one scientific study you posted was not 5:2. Having 2 and then 3 days gaps between fasting isn't regular, not like a fasting period every day or every second day is.

The advantages of 5:2 are no where near well established, IF in general is not very well researched currently.

Nice ad hominem attack though, maybe you should just leave it there.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 2:25pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

16:8 is a very common IF period.

The one scientific study you posted was not 5:2. Having 2 and then 3 days gaps between fasting isn't regular, not like a fasting period every day or every second day is.

The advantages of 5:2 are no where near well established, IF in general is not very well researched currently.

Nice ad hominem attack though, maybe you should just leave it there.

I know it's very common I just thought it extremely hypocritical on your part to say studies on intermittent fasting in general weren't relevent and then magically 16:8/leangains is somehow applicable even though it resembles the studies far less than 5:2 does.

I posted 3 reviews.

It is regular: 2 days, 3 days, 2 days, 3 days, 2 days, 3 days... ad infinitum seems regular to me?

16:8 is the optimal method of intermittent fasting (in my opinion but I'd surprised if any thought otherwise) for athletes.
It is debatable in terms of health benefits, if 16:8 or 5:2 is better in terms of health (longevity, cancer, diabetes). I would not be surprised if either one was found to be 'better'.
I think 5:2 is perfectly acceptable if you don't take the piss with the non-fasting days but I would be more confident advising some to take up 16:8/leangains as the leangains diet is more structured and friendly to people who want to exercise.

I also think that if two people had the exact same diet, food for food, but one implemented leangains or 5:2 and the other just ate through out the day the former would have better health markers. Just throwing that out there to rustle some jimmies.

Ad hominem suggests that I tried to refute your argument by attacking your character. I refuted your argument with facts and I didn't attack your character, I merely stated facts.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 2:27pm

generic2012 wrote: »

It is regular: 2 days, 3 days, 2 days, 3 days, 2 days, 3 days... ad infinitum seems regular to me?
.

No, this is not regular.

Calling someone simple seems like a character attack.

All the best.

generic2012 · 17-06-2014 2:44pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, this is not regular.

Calling someone simple seems like a character attack.

All the best.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regular

I said making claims without evidence and thinking that's acceptable for one person while at the same time saying some one else's claim, which is backed up with ample evidence, isn't acceptable is a sign of a simple man. I didn't say you were simple. Anyway you could just give evidence for your own claims or accept the claims of the other person.

It's also hypocritical, as is telling someone to 'fook off' and then getting butt hurt about an 'ad hominem'.

runawaybishop · 17-06-2014 2:46pm

generic2012 wrote: »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regular

I said making claims without evidence and thinking that's acceptable for one person while at the same time saying some one else's claim, which is backed up with ample evidence, isn't acceptable is a sign of a simple man. I didn't say you were simple. Anyway you could just give evidence for your own claims or accept the claims of the other person.

It's also hypocritical, as is telling someone to 'fook off' and then getting butt hurt about an 'ad hominem'.

gettign circular now, toodles.

The five two diet

Comments