5:2 fasting diet - any experiences/views?

I think, but I'm not sure, that he means natural foods and not processed rubbish.

M..o.use wrote (see)

I think, but I'm not sure, that he means natural foods and not processed rubbish.

Ah ok, thanks. I've always been a fan of less processed stuff and I think anything labelled as 'diet' really isn't. Good food but less is the best way, look at the iconic French patisserie v Greggs and I rest my case!

Flyaway - it'll never last !

I'm not sure if Meface was agreeing with me or not as he didnt get to finish.

Mouse - indeed, although it doesnt have to be that strict, if you eat cleaner then your body will work better too. I still eat Pizza with the kids, in fact its a pre race meal (with jacket spuds and salad). I just save it for the weekends. Sports nutrition is saved for race day too. Real foods are the way to go, look back at the 50's and 60's folks were skinneir then, my kids find it funny when that i say we only had one fat kid in our year at school.

Doozer - ok I will. Last time I raced you, you were a long way ahead of me, do what you were doing back then.

I agree with TR .. eat foods closest to their natural source and you wont go far wrong
If the ingredients have more numbers than letters then that is never a good sign either  

It's taken me a long while to get there and a re-education from someone too but I agree totally with Meldy and TR.  It's a lot easier to do than I thought it would be too.  I've lost 2st 5lbs so far and I don't fast.

for those who may not have read it - here's the link to the BBC programme which helped promote this diet into the national conscious - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19112549

the programme didn't solely look at the weight loss side of things but also at the "potential" side benefits of intermittent fasting - and they are very much unproven, so the diet side of IF is the one that's caught everyone's imagination but (and to quote the Bournemouth crustacean) it's NFRS.   it's a calorie reduction programme but having 2 fast days give it an easier structure to follow as trying to reduce calories on a daily basis is not easy to stick to as many dieters have found.  by eating normally (and that needs discipline not to binge out after a fast day) on 5 days, but really cutting down to 0-500 cals on 2 fast days makes it easier to stick to a weekly calorie reduction.   it's as simple as that.

the food you eat is to an extent immaterial - it's the overall calorie balance that counts (let's not argue the %'s of fat, protein, carbs for simplicity) - although I wouldn't disagree with those advocating eating wholeseome, fresh food rather than convenience.  

and if it gives the results that people are after - or by whatever alternative method such as Mouse has used - then it's done it's job for that person.   

be interested to see how you get on Doozer..

fat buddha wrote (see)

 (and to quote the Bournemouth crustacean) it's NFRS.  

He is from Poole - Bournemouth is where the cool people live

fat buddha wrote (see)

the food you eat is to an extent immaterial - it's the overall calorie balance that counts (let's not argue the %'s of fat, protein, carbs for simplicity) - although I wouldn't disagree with those advocating eating wholeseome, fresh food rather than convenience.  

and if it gives the results that people are after - or by whatever alternative method such as Mouse has used - then it's done it's job for that person.   

be interested to see how you get on Doozer..

'Most' of the food I eat is good quality and very low percentage of processed food. 

Will let you know how it goes, if I can lose 4-7kgs then it will be worth it!

Bournemouth/Poole - it's one big metropolis these days...

fat buddha wrote (see)

 it's a calorie reduction programme but having 2 fast days give it an easier structure to follow as trying to reduce calories on a daily basis is not easy to stick to as many dieters have found.  by eating normally (and that needs discipline not to binge out after a fast day) on 5 days, but really cutting down to 0-500 cals on 2 fast days makes it easier to stick to a weekly calorie reduction.   it's as simple as that.

The trouble is, that a lot of people dont know what "normal eating" is. If reducing daily calories is hard, is eating virtually nothing for a whole day any easier? The key is the word you've used - "discipline". You're far better being disciplined on a daily basis. I dont believe that the majority of people who try it dont end up re-compensating for their "fast" on the days that they can eat, and I see this as simply a short-term, minor weight loss, which doesnt last.

Good luck though, Doozer, I hope you get the results you want.
TR - yeah, give it a day and it'll be situation normal again!

fa - you're not wrong about people not knowing what normal eating is, and no doubt many do relapse from the fasting days.   but if it offers someone a means of reducing calories that is easier for them than reduction on a daily basis, then it will perhaps suit them.   I think it's easier to "program" a fast day into a plan than rely on thinking what you're eating every day.   the issue becomes perhaps having a "normal" diet on non-fasting days vs normal+ 'cos you've been hungry!

ultimately (most) weight loss programmes based on overall calorie reduction fail in the longer term as people relapse to old ways.  weight loss - as Mouse has shown - needs a very disciplined approach over a longer period and perhaps a change of lifestyle (more exercise, less booze, smaller plates etc)

anyway, as a 16+ stone porker I can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk on these things!!!

Agreed - what's needed is a change of lifestyle-diet, which probably involves re-educating people on what and how to cook and shop, portion sizes and formulating a balanced diet. Unfortunately, for a lot of busy people, this is seen as far too big an investment in time and effort, and for poor people, until the price of fruit and vegetables comes down, far too big a chunk of monthly expenditure - when I was a teenager, McDonalds did 29cent hamburger Wednesdays and 39cent Cheeseburger Sundays, and if you're on a tight budget, you can feed your kid for a dollar and spend the rest on smokes or drink.
It's really not horribly complicated, so making it "easier" (whilst possible) is ultimately self-defeating. However, there is probably a small percentage of people for whom WW would work in the longterm, and a small percentage of people for whom IF would work in the longterm, as personality and character will have a lot to do with the success of any of these programs that I cant help but see as being built around a "gimmick" in one shape or form.

Oh, and I weigh 58kgs, but I dont think that makes me any more or less qualified to comment, I am just opinionated and superficially fairly interested.

Opinionated?

A facet of your character I'd never noticed.  Never. At. All.

I hate opinionated people

(will read back now)

M..o.use wrote (see)

It's taken me a long while to get there and a re-education from someone too but I agree totally with Meldy and TR.  It's a lot easier to do than I thought it would be too.  I've lost 2st 5lbs so far and I don't fast.

Congrats on the weight loss.

I hate people who post without reading back.

TR wrote (see)

I'm not sure if Meface was agreeing with me or not as he didnt get to finish.

Yes in agreement that it is overall caolries in vs calories out. Just making that point that both sides of the equation can be altered.

Metabolic rate is not a fixed amount. Exercise can change energy used both during the activity and afterwards plus extra muscles requires more energy and therefore ups metabolic rate. But also changes to diet itself can up metabolic rate. Caffine, Curry and Chilli all up HR and increase metabolic rate.

M.eface

(eating himself thin)