Anyone try the "five and two" diet?

[Jenise]

My husband's son just visited. We commented on how slim he is. He was never fat or anything--he and his family live a very healthy, yoga-filled lifestyle, but he'd filled out a bit since college and he's now back to about what he weighed on day one of his freshman year. He said he and his wife had done the "five and two" diet. He lost 35 pounds in about six months.

I had no idea what he was talking about.

Then yesterday I heard a piece on NPR about it. Pretty compelling. I know fasting can have an amazing positive effect on various disorders, but I wouldn't have believed that intermittent fasting could improve immunity and lower glucose better than low-fat dieting. But some studies are apparently indicating it does.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/01/12/376712920/minifasting-how-occasionally-skipping-meals-may-boost-health

One thing that's particularly compelling is how relatively easy this program would be to maintain going forward.

5:2 diet (as it's known in UK) has had tremendous publicity in the past years.

Idea is you go down to 5/600* calories on any 2 days of the week and eat as normally the other 5 days.

I have lost over 7 stone which is more than 98 pounds in 18 months.

There's only one way, IMO, that you can lose weight.

Consume less than you use**

There's only two ways you can do this

-- Consume fewer calories than you burn

-- Burn more calories than you consume


There's only three ways to achieve this

Eat fewer calories

Exercise more

Exercise more and eat fewer calories.

Seems every month there's a new diet and 5:2 is just another in a long long line. All it boils down to is eat fewer calories.

I think there's actually a lot more to it.

There's two types of diet -- the one in the mags which is intended to be followed for a short time to lose weight built up over periods like Christmas when people consume more.

But most diets are difficult if not impossible to contine for a long time (any one remember the Atkin's diet?)

Some people are genetically disposed to being fat; for people like us a diet can't be about losing weight then resuming 'normal' eating, it has to be about changing eating habits for ever.

Last time I weighed myself I was 138.5 pounds
.
(that was before current trip to the Antipodes

* different for women/men
** its not about eating less, it's all about eating fewer calories -- which is not the same thing.

I also saw this on NPR, and was intrigued. I'd like to give it a go, not necessarily from a weight loss perspective, but they said that studies show people have better memory and reduced appetite as some of the benefits as well. Our schedule is rather hectic and active right now, which might make this challenging, but I'd like to see if we can try this in the next few months or so.

[Jenise]

Peter, yes, there will always be fad diets, there will always be some doctor wanting to become the next celebrity diet guru and sell a ton of books, and yes it all comes down to burning more calories than you eat. Agreed on all counts: but what impressed me in the story I heard on NPR, if you chose not to listen to it based on your familiarity with the program, is the tale they tell about the way fasting two days per week lowers glucose levels and improves immunity. It's not just about losing weight.

Congratulations on your weight loss, btw. But, 139 pounds? You lost almost half of yourself. How tall are you?

Intermittent fasting is a big thing in the bodybuilding world. The "8/16" diet. You basically only eat during an eight hour window. The other 16 hours you fast.

Over the past year, I BADLY let my diet get a little out of control, so despite serious exercise addiction, I have gotten a little fatter. Not at my worst point ever five years ago, but not happy with myself.

I am tempted to try the intermittent fasting thing.

[Jenise]

Intermittent fasting is a big thing in the bodybuilding world. The "8/16" diet. You basically only eat during an eight hour window. The other 16 hours you fast.

Actually, that's pretty close to how I live anyway. I rarely eat until late morning or lunch, and I eat nothing after dinner so most of what I eat is consumed within an eight hour period because that's when I'm hungry. Would never have considered it fasting, nor am I skinny as a result! What does it do for bodybuilders?

If I could kill the late night eating, that would be a start! I have an ice cream addiction (which seems to be subsiding...the cravings are not being assuaged if I get in) and my landlady is an amazing Mexican cook who likes me to try her "experiements". Plus, if I lift weights after work, I sometimes get hungry.

Breakfast would be tougher. I like my coffee drinks. But I need to do this.

What does it do for bodybuilders?

It makes them appear more cut and ripped for competition. None of them keep it up in the off season for obvious reasons.

What does it do for bodybuilders?

It makes them appear more cut and ripped for competition. None of them keep it up in the off season for obvious reasons.

IF is not in itself the kind of extreme dieting that can be rampant in competitive bodybuilding. And I am not really referencing only competition people-one of the biggest advocates is not a competitive bodybuilder at atll.

Some claim to do the intermittent fasting long term and that it is healthier overall. Note that IF is not severe calorie restriction in itself-it is a meal timing plan. People using IF can even "bulk" on it as well as cutting.. The argument (their argument) is that human beings woke up and had to hunt or gether their food, which might take a while. So, some argue that there are historic or even metabolic reasons to limit early morning food.

What does it do for bodybuilders?

It makes them appear more cut and ripped for competition. None of them keep it up in the off season for obvious reasons.

IF is not in itself the kind of extreme dieting that can be rampant in competitive bodybuilding. And I am not really referencing only competition people-one of the biggest advocates is not a competitive bodybuilder at atll.

Some claim to do the intermittent fasting long term and that it is healthier overall. Note that IF is not severe calorie restriction in itself-it is a meal timing plan. People using IF can even "bulk" on it as well as cutting.. The argument (their argument) is that human beings woke up and had to hunt or gether their food, which might take a while. So, some argue that there are historic or even metabolic reasons to limit early morning food.

I never said or claimed anything to the contrary, Brian, so I have no idea why you quoted what I said and specifically replied to me.

I found that I personally wasn't getting anywhere on my diet and exercise program, the exercise part of which was jogging. Then I injured both my knees and couldn't jog anymore--the best I can manage these days is a brisk walk. I added resistance training to the mix (one complete circuit of Cybex machines three times a week) and the progress has been dramatic. I have put on some muscle mass, my resting metabolic rate is significantly higher than it was, and I'm now seeing steady weight loss. The net weight loss is 17 pounds, but factoring in the muscle gain I've probably burned off 25+ pounds of fat.

-Paul W.

It's not just about losing weight.

Congratulations on your weight loss, btw. But, 139 pounds? You lost almost half of yourself. How tall are you?

I haven't clicked your link solely because I'm travelling wth limited internet access (the unllimited bandwith you get in US hotels is rare here -- in fact someplaces are still chraging for limited access -- hang your head in shame, IBIS chain at 68c per minute with a downlaod limit).

Weight loss, is a health benefit in itself, but there are many diets offereing various health benefits, low GI and etc.

5ft 7in

ooops, the lounge at Sydney is closing, have to go

[Robin Garr]

Since this seems to be a fad in Blighty, I browsed some British sources to see what the locals are saying, and found this piece that seems to line up both pros and cons:

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/blogs/suza ... -days.html

[Jenise]

I never said or claimed anything to the contrary, Brian, so I have no idea why you quoted what I said and specifically replied to me.

He was merely adding to your reply to me, Dave.

[Jenise]

Since this seems to be a fad in Blighty, I browsed some British sources to see what the locals are saying, and found this piece that seems to line up both pros and cons:

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/blogs/suza ... -days.html

The cons weren't very convincing to me. "Could cause dizziness!" I doubt if most healthy people would suffer that. Sure, some people would simply find it impossible to stick to 500 calories for a day, but for others it would be easier than sticking to some 1200 calories for months at a time with no relief. I'm pretty sure I'm one of them.

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/blogs/suzannah-ramsdale/542291/5-2-diet-recipes-what-can-you-eat-on-the-fasting-days.html

This sentence seems fishy to me: "This repair mode causes the body to restore damaged cells, which uses more energy, whereas starvation mode causes your body to store fat."

I have done low-carb diets, ketostix and all. So-called "starvation mode" is when the body burns fat. Your body stores fat during those periods when you ingest extra calories -- you know, most of the time. To me, the phrase "starvation mode" means you aren't taking in enough calories.

This sentence seems fishy to me: "This repair mode causes the body to restore damaged cells, which uses more energy, whereas starvation mode causes your body to store fat."

I have done low-carb diets, ketostix and all. So-called "starvation mode" is when the body burns fat. Your body stores fat during those periods when you ingest extra calories -- you know, most of the time. To me, the phrase "starvation mode" means you aren't taking in enough calories.

Hell, most sentences in diet hype seem fishy to me. If you are starving, how can you store fat?

My understanding is that in starvation mode the body burns glycogen reserves, fat reserves, muscle proteins--in that order.

[Jenise]

I have done low-carb diets, ketostix and all. So-called "starvation mode" is when the body burns fat. Your body stores fat during those periods when you ingest extra calories -- you know, most of the time. To me, the phrase "starvation mode" means you aren't taking in enough calories.

Good catch.

I read a comment about 5:2 that made sense to me, that many people found it easier to keep to a diet for 2 days where they couldn't maintain a long term diet.

But if you need to maintain a long term diet, then there's something wrong, IMO, that needs fixing.

5:2 for a short might be great for losing a little extra gained during Xmas or holidays

But all the same I can't understand the 'eat normally' bit of the 5 days, if it was that normality that got you overweight. If normality is - for example - having pie and icecream after dinner, why wouldn't you just stop having dessert rather than go through the pain of a '2' day? Or do the '2' and forgo the pie?

I read a comment about 5:2 that made sense to me, that many people found it easier to keep to a diet for 2 days where they couldn't maintain a long term diet.

But if you need to maintain a long term diet, then there's something wrong, IMO, that needs fixing.

5:2 for a short might be great for losing a little extra gained during Xmas or holidays

But all the same I can't understand the 'eat normally' bit of the 5 days, if it was that normality that got you overweight. If normality is - for example - having pie and icecream after dinner, why wouldn't you just stop having dessert rather than go through the pain of a '2' day? Or do the '2' and forgo the pie?

Because rather than make adjustments to one's lifestyle, people often prefer to believe in a silver bullet, not to mention the volume of charlatans with all the answers to sell to us.

Don't be surprised if there are some side effects, like trouble sleeping or gastrointestinal issues.

Those side effects alone would keep me away from this fad diet.

[Jenise]

But all the same I can't understand the 'eat normally' bit of the 5 days, if it was that normality that got you overweight.

I believe it's specific to eating normally up to 2000 calories. For some people, a much higher number is normal.

LOL Jenise

That's what is missed out in the many newspaper columns which suggest all you need to do is diet on 2 days a week..

And indeed the first paragraph in the introduction to the diet on its inventer website says

That’s five days of normal eating, with little thought to calorie control and a slice of pie for pudding if that’s what you want. Then, on the other two days, you reduce your calorie intake to 500 calories for women and 600 calories for men.

Only later does it mention what you say, that 'normally' is 2,000 cal for women and 2,400 cal for men.

But if people had been eating 'normally' -- i.e. that number of calories -- in h then they wouldn't/shouldn't be overweight.in the first place.

Getting down to 2,000/2,400 calories on 5 days a week will be as much a struggle for many at doing the 2 days.

Regarding the body going into "starvation mode": as I understand it, several things happen when the body detects a chronic calorie deficit. Fat is mobilized and burned as an energy source. But the body's general metabolic rate slows down as well, so that you're burning fewer calories per day than you normally would. And if you then go to normal caloric intake, the metabolic rate remains low and the calories are stored as fat. It takes several days of caloric intake at normal levels before metabolism returns to normal. This is why professional dieticians often prescribe eating several small meals spaced out across the day--the body sees a steady input of calories and doesn't switch into starvation mode. It's also part of why a combination of exercise (increasing caloric output) as well as diet (decreasing caloric input) is usually more effective than just decreasing caloric input alone.

-Paul W.