Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The five two diet

2»

Comments

  • #32
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    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 ;)


  • #33
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    seamus wrote: »
    Agreed, but then you too made unproven claims about it causing binging and lethergy ;)

    Ah heyore.


  • #34
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    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.


  • #35
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    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.


  • #36
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    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 :/


  • #38
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    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.


  • #39
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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?


  • #40
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    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.....


  • #41
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    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.


  • #43
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    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.


  • #44
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    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'.


  • #45
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    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.


Advertisement