The 5:2 diet?

[v0n]

By the time you reach a weight that is sustained by 1600 cals per day i would imagine you would have reached your target no?

I would imagine that anyone who needs 1600 cals to maintain their current weight could only weigh around 10 stone at max.

Very much depends on life style. In my age and height, with desk job, traveling 3-4 hours in a car to and from work, 1600 calories is enough to barely maintain 100kg weight. To go to 80kg I would need to restrict intake to 1300 calories for a year, and god knows after entire year shedding first 30kg, I cannot even imagine what life with 300 calories or one meal a day less looks like.

 

[Skillmister]

Are people actually this stupid?

 

[Sleeve]

Very much depends on life style. In my age and height, with desk job, traveling 3-4 hours in a car to and from work, 1600 calories is enough to barely maintain 100kg weight. To go to 80kg I would need to restrict intake to 1300 calories for a year, and god knows after entire year shedding first 30kg, I cannot even imagine what life with 300 calories or one meal a day less looks like.

I have to disagree with you there mate. Even living a sedentary life 1600 cals is too low. At a guess I'd say you'd need minimum of 1800 to maintain 100kg. Its not exactly light...

Plus if people are trying to lose weight then they'll be excercising also, making the calorie requirements even higher.

 

[steve-h]

Anyone heard of this diet, seems quite popular. The idea is you eat pretty much what you want five days a week

and that's why you're fat.

 

[Sleeve]

and that's why you're fat.

Lol.

 

[Alex53]

The idea is not to pig out for 5 days and then fast for 2. The idea is to eat normally for 5 days and then very little for 2.

And its not about weight loss, its about lowering levels of IGF-1 in your body to allow it to repair cells.

The point is being misrepresented, and the point is being missed.

 

[Pestilence]

The idea is not to pig out for 5 days and then fast for 2. The idea is to eat normally for 5 days and then very little for 2.

And its not about weight loss, its about lowering levels of IGF-1 in your body to allow it to repair cells.

The point is being misrepresented, and the point is being missed.

Shush, you. The rabble are speaking!

 

[Xordium]

The idea is not to pig out for 5 days and then fast for 2. The idea is to eat normally for 5 days and then very little for 2.

And its not about weight loss, its about lowering levels of IGF-1 in your body to allow it to repair cells.

The point is being misrepresented, and the point is being missed.

I think you are missing the point - that fatties will pig out for 5 days and then it will end up exactly like my first post, the wannabe anorexics will still be living on a lettuce and bogroll salad and the healthy people will be controlling their diet properly with an appropriate amount of exercise. There is a difference between a theoretical concept and its implementation into the real world.

 

[Saundie]

I think you are missing the point - that fatties will pig out for 5 days and then it will end up exactly like my first post, the wannabe anorexics will still be living on a lettuce and bogroll salad and the healthy people will be controlling their diet properly with an appropriate amount of exercise. There is a difference between a theoretical concept and its implementation into the real world.

The people who "pig out" for 5 days aren't following the 5:2 diet, because in the 5:2 diet you eat normally for 5 days a week, and restrict your calories for the other two. This is what Alex53 is getting at when he says this is being misrepresented.

 

[Xordium]

The people who "pig out" for 5 days aren't following the 5:2 diet, because in the 5:2 diet you eat normally for 5 days a week, and restrict your calories for the other two. This is what Alex53 is getting at when he says this is being misrepresented.

Yes, but the very fact it is being labelled as a diet indicates the target audience. People who are healthy don't necessarily need diets and would use sensible fasting as a part of a healthy lifestyle overall. This is hardly new information we have known for a good hundred years that calorie low lifestyles have tangible health benefits. To then wrap it up as a 5-2 concept is then taking this and extrapolating it into a different area - the marketing for those that are unable to sustain a healthy life and therefore have to resort to intermittent remedies. The word diet denotes a temporary event - now talk about the principle behind it calories low and nutrition rich with low protein then I'd agree but that is not being sold here is it. It is being sold as a diet which are about changing the symptoms of poor lifestyle - you need to change the lifestyle.

 

[Mat]

As far as I can tell, Alex53 seems to be the only person who actually understands the aim of this eating regime. It's not a quick fix, lose weight now! fad/diet at all rather a method of shifting your body into mend and repair rather than just grow and grow.

 

[Xordium]

I understand it very - well enough to know that a method for increasing overall age and health should not be marketed as a diet which is synonymous with weight loss ... so he is correct that it is being misrepresented but he is wrong to dismiss the people who criticise it as a tool for weight loss something he has posted on here to agree with.

 

[Saundie]

Yes, but the very fact it is being labelled as a diet indicates the target audience. People who are healthy don't necessarily need diets and would use sensible fasting as a part of a healthy lifestyle overall. This is hardly new information we have known for a good hundred years that calorie low lifestyles have tangible health benefits. To then wrap it up as a 5-2 concept is then taking this and extrapolating it into a different area - the marketing for those that are unable to sustain a healthy life and therefore have to resort to intermittent remedies. The word diet denotes a temporary event - now talk about the principle behind it calories low and nutrition rich with low protein then I'd agree but that is not being sold here is it. It is being sold as a diet which are about changing the symptoms of poor lifestyle - you need to change the lifestyle.

The problem here is that we seem to be using the word "diet" to mean a nutrition plan with the aim of weight loss. In the context of a "5:2 diet", the word diet is used to mean "the sum of food consumed by a person or other organism" - i.e. the "proper" sense of the word, rather than the popular one.

We all have a diet; we all have to eat, after all. As pedantic as it may seem, this is unfortunately one circumstance where semantics are very relevant.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I fully understand why you have said this, and I agree that the overwhelming majority of people would say the same.

 

[Xordium]

Yes and that is they key point. Medically speaking a diet plan would be an overall thought process towards a balanced input of nutrition towards a common goal ie health improvement. Therefore, you have a theoretical concept of a health diet. But in common parlance diet means something very different a temporary measure to bring about a desired weightloss.

What has happened here is that the word has been used out of context. Hence my point about the problem of implement theory into the real world. Because when you write an article about 'diet' in a newspaper eg the daily fail then the target audience is quite clear. I would also say that wrapping it up as a 5:2 thing is not really supported by strong empirical data and therefore is a interpretative attempt to implement the theory into the real world and not scientifically 'proven' although the theories behind it are.

Hence my point you can castigate people for knocking this using the common parlance variation because that is what it is being marketed as and labeled as. This is not the first time people have taken theory and then warped it to push an idea that is actually unsubstantiated - and it would be hard to substantiate something like this because it would be one quite timely piece of research. Moreover, a lot of the research into the pathways in this area are making some bold correlated claims with little causative support. Hardly helps the cause.

 

[dowie]

You read this off Yahoo lifestyle section didn't you

It may work because it changes your metabolism because if you cut down your diet and do hardly any exercise, after a few days your body will get used to having "less food to work on" and metabolism will slow down.

Well that's what they say.

that's backwards - you want a high metabolism if you want to lose weight not a slow one

presumably the idea of fasting for only a short period in between eating as you like is that your metabolism doesn't slow down

anyway virtually starving yourself for two days a week seems like a silly idea - just eat a balanced diet and do some exercise...

 

[Alex53]

Well. Then lets let people concentrate on their fad temporary quick weight loss diets.

I'm interested in the serious science being done on calorie restriction, the research into how IGF-1 affects us, the better understanding of how our body works, and the health benefits it could all bring to anyone, whether overweight or not.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Define "eating normally"?

To someone who loves fast food and kebabs its a takeaway every night, then some salad at the weekends?

Whilst it's intentions are good, I think this regime is open to interpretation.

Agreed the point is not weight loss, but it will most likely have that message lost once the dieting crowd get hold of it - which seems like what is happening already.

The fact is we have too many fat people who don't want to be fat but cant be bothered to make the life changes needed in order to lose weight (I counted myself among that crowd until some fairly recent changes in lifestyle). The "must have it now" culture is very much to blame.

Hence the peddling of "lose weight quickly without any effort" diets.

I have been on two myself and have realised that actually, the only sustainable way of doing things is the old fashioned way that has worked for centuries.

Who knew?

Buff

 

[Judgeneo]

I've had a few friends go on this diet with great success

 

[Xordium]

Well. Then lets let people concentrate on their fad temporary quick weight loss diets.

I'm interested in the serious science being done on calorie restriction, the research into how IGF-1 affects us, the better understanding of how our body works, and the health benefits it could all bring to anyone, whether overweight or not.

Well you should be busy then it isn't like there is dearth of material.

 

[Alex53]

that's backwards - you want a high metabolism if you want to lose weight not a slow one

presumably the idea of fasting for only a short period in between eating as you like is that your metabolism doesn't slow down

anyway virtually starving yourself for two days a week seems like a silly idea - just eat a balanced diet and do some exercise...

Thats the thing. Not eating for 2 days is not 'virtually starving' yourself. Not only can your body take it, but the science being done is suggesting it is actually good for you.

We are generally too used to having food on tap to accept that. We strived through a lot of our history not to be undernourished, but now its swung the other way, and we are overnourished.

Even the way hunger works is not generally understood in our society because we are never without food for long enough to realise. You will not be constantly hungry for those 2 days. Hunger comes in waves. You will be hungry and then it will pass, then feel hungry again, and so on. Just ask anyone who practices ramadam.