Forum menu
It was a TV show, not science, even if they get a presenter with a medical doctorate to undergo the "diet".
But the results on the presenter were scientifically taken and proved that the theory worked...as backed up by the NHS...I'll fetch my coat
D28boy, one person does not science proof make.
Given that most who do this diet claim, or indeed are, more aware of the calorific content of their food, what would happen if you dropped each days calory intake by 500cals but didn't have fast days? Weekly intake would drop but be the same as on the 5:2 "diet".
Eat for sixteen hours, fast for eight. I've been doing it for years.
Works great.
I should write a book?
My brother did a charity fast once. No food except bread and water for 24 hours. Started it after dinner one evening. Finished it just before dinner the next evening. Had sarnies for lunch. So in effect was a normal day, apart from moving 2 dinners slightly earlier/later, and skipping breakfast.
As someone who eats large amounts, struggles with portion control, makes awesome pies and curries, loves little more than a plate full of pasta. This diet plan, works for me, sometimes I follow it more tightly than others, I find a can fast at work pretty easily as the temptation is reduced. As has been said above, eating 'sensibly and healthily' all the damn time just means I'm made to feel bad for every nice thing I have, EVER. And frankly, **** that! Plus sticking to it for more than a couple of months is really hard to do. But if I am left to my own devices I put on 2 stone so something is needed. It sounds a lot like it works for otherS in a similar way. Found my diet.
Job Done
Been doing it a year now.
...how much weight you lost, UH? Or just maintaining?
However if you're training for a specific goal and already train and eat well, then there may be certain ways to manipulate your metabolism to lose more weight and/or get a training benefit.
I don't necessarily disagree, but every cycling biography I've read (when they go into such detail) seems to revolve around weighing portions, timing training so on bike food is taken over meal times (skipping a meal) and essentially ENSURING (and that's the point, the bit I miss) a slight calorie deficit. They also all seem as neo pros to live on the cheapest carb rich foods they could get their hands on.
That and loads of drugs of course 🙂
I've done the leangains style 8 hour window one before, never really thought of it as a 'diet' though, just a way to easily restrict my calories to a reasonable level for my fairly sedate daily life.
In fact, it worked so well since I've stopped I'm hungry all the time and I've put a stone on. Think I'll be going back on it from tomorrow seeing as I finished the last of my granola off this morning.
The problem (especially for people like me who eat with the family) with following diets like pro cyclists is that they can eat what they want to buy for themselves and then have the time/will to train for hours a day. I could probably lose weight eating pasta three times a day if I was out riding for 5 hours+ a day. But after leaving the house for work at 7 in the morning then getting back at 7 at night then entertaining the kids for an hour or two it doesn't leave a fat lot of time to ride.
Fasting diets are great if you need to restrict calories very low for office worker types that don't get chance to do huge training milages. For example, for me to lose any weight, I have to restrict my calories down to below 1500 for the day, that's pretty hard if you have breakfast, lunch and then dinner with a family of skinny ****ers 😡
I hear what you're saying (my situation too) but I was more illustrating that they seem to go from some silly low fat % and weight to even lower simply by creating a calorie deficit, rather than anything more elaborate.
I reckon 99% of my problems are down to just not being obsessive enough about the balance, and possibly not really being sure about how many calories the tipping point is at for me - 2500 calories is as arbitrary as 220 - Age for HR obviously.
I've been on the Paleo diet for two months now and can thoroughly encourage it. The amount of research and references to peer reviewed articles is astounding. Backed by Joe Friel too, so ideal for athletes. It's made a big difference to how hungry I am, and I'm in the form of my life currently.
People think a (fad) diet works because they lose weight while they are on it?? Blimey. Just blimey.
They also all seem as neo pros to live on the cheapest carb rich foods they could get their hands on.
That's the old way of doing things, a neo pro often had to fend for himself. And generally cheap foods are carb rich, rather than the other way around.
If you followed a Team Sky neo pro, who will actually have access to the teams resources, dietitians etc will be on a carefully controlled diet which will contain a lot of protein and if they are tyring to lose weight will be in calorie deficit.
It's probably not advisable for a pro cyclist who trains 5/6 times a week to do the 5:2 diet as on the fast days they will have very extreme calorie deficit; but for one of us regular people who can maybe only exercise twice a week it seems like a very simple, neat way to ensure we are in calorie deficit and being hungry twice a week won't do us any harm.
@ Brassneck I agree too, at the end of the day, it's all simple deficit whatever method you use, even the paleo diet, you just end up not getting the cravings and stuff becuase 1. your'e committed to not eating mars bars and 2. meat and protein is more filling and less calorie dense/lower GI
Where the pro cyclists have the edge is that a 500 calorie deficit on 5000 calories a day is much easier to manage hunger wise than 500 calories of 2000.
Also sitting in an office all day makes me want to eat/drink/kill myself.
Any 'fad diet' that consists of eating less 'proper food' rather than watered down corn syrup and cayenne pepper is fine by me, they're just a nice set of rules the keep you on the path. It's the same as having a workout plan rather than just going to the gym and doing whatever you feel like.
1. your'e committed to not eating mars bars and 2. meat and protein is more filling and less calorie dense/lower GIAny 'fad diet' that consists of eating less 'proper food' rather than watered down corn syrup and cayenne pepper is fine by me,
Amen!
People think a (fad) diet works because they lose weight while they are on it?? Blimey. Just blimey.
Quite. The 5:2 diet will almost inevitably result in eating less over the course of a week. It's not altogether surprising that it results in weight loss...
schmiken - Member
The amount of research and references to peer reviewed articles is astounding.
Go on I'll bite(lite) Please provide references, this'll be medical so proper medical journals.
how much weight you lost, UH? Or just maintaining
If I allow myself more generous fasting days, I just maintain, if I'm stricter then I shed a bit, down to 95kg from 107ish. I'm into the hard to shed stuff now, had it for many many years (also increased muscle mass along the way abit too so lost more than 12kg of fat).
The great thing is if you do a couple of very healthy on days as well, then you can punch through resistant weight barrier, then stablise at the new weight, as recently lost weight is always very keen to go back on.
It was me who said I'm doing it for weight loss, but if the other benefits of fasting giving your body space to regenerate are true then that's an added bonus. I'm not convinced on that, I'll be frank. But since start of year I'm down about 3st, my riding is transformed (as are my clothes), so count me as a fan.
Given that most who do this diet claim, or indeed are, more aware of the calorific content of their food, what would happen if you dropped each days calory intake by 500cals but didn't have fast days? Weekly intake would drop but be the same as on the 5:2 "diet".
Probably very similar, although if you do the maths (and assume 2500 is your non-fast day allowance and you stick to it) 2 x 500 + 5 x 2500 = 13500 / 7 means you need to save ca 600 kcal per day EVERY DAY. And that's the issue, sticking to 1900 cals per day for ever is (for me) unsustainable particularly if i am in a hotel / in the US for a week / taking a client for dinner (and trust me, i've tried for years now including another 6 weeks or so of MFP controlled intake before going over onto the 5:2). Whereas accepting some days you stray but make it a non-fast day and damage is limited is sustainable.
Thanks tojv, think you've shown that by reducing calories you can lose weight. Now let's look at the "move more" side of the equation.
As jonv said ^
That's why I think it's a lifestyle type of eating, easy to manage over a course of a week. I like my food and only having to 'watch' what I eat for 2 or 3 days per week as opposed to monitor intake daily is much more sustainable.
Go on I'll bite(lite) Please provide references, this'll be medical so proper medical journals.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3tJIputF6UMC&pg=PA273&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
So your fat, eat less and do more exercise, not frikking rocket science is it! Fad diets are all about doing just enough that you lose some weight but not enough to actually make you keep it off once you stop!
If you are fat accept you eat too much and do too little, pretty simple! Cut out the take aways and eat a sensibly, increase exercise and hey presto!
There was actually an interesting documentary on channel 5 a few weeks back where some Aussie guy put some yank on a purely liquidised fruit/veg diet, did the trick damn fast, saved his bacon too! Took the p1ss out of any 5:2 diet!
I'm not fat, troll.
I'm not fat, troll.
If you're not fat why are you on a diet?
.