5:2 diet

kittykat500

I was also intrigued by the programme and have completed two consecutive low calorie fasting days last week and another yesterday as, like many, I don't want to go into old age with heart disease etc.

I must admit that I found it relatively easy when I left the 400 calorie meal for the evening but eating the calorie ration for breakfast, as I did yesterday, I found it extremely difficult to go through until this morning! Also, I found it interesting that I did not feel like stuffing myself as I thought I might this morning or the rest today in fact! I guess this is how it works by retraining your stomach to expect less food.

In the past I have followed a low-carb, high protein diet but in the back of my mind it's always bothered me as my mum always used to tell me meat and sugar ages you! Seems Horizon bore this out where protein is concerned.

What I took from it was that if you fast, you also need to restrict protein intake to recommended daily allowances on non fast days. This makes getting enough calories a bit of a problem as you need to eat a 'shed load' of vegetables to make up a normal dietary intake if cutting back on carbs and protein too! Better increase oily salad dressings then!

Also, I can't remember if women got the same benefits from the trials? Maybe someone out there remembers.

murphydog999

I've been reading with interest, and confusion. A lot of people will be 'playing' with this as a means to loose weight - which isn't the underlying reason for the research, however beneficial.

However, I am led to ask, when is a 'fast' not a 'fast?' As surely a 'fast' means you are fasting, i.e. going without food. On the 5:2 plan you are eating on the lower calorie days (obviously!) so it's not a fast, and surely does not have the same body responses and actually 'fasting?'

Just_a_Girl_2

That was the problem I had with the programme too. In fact, a colleague told me today she was fasting as she stood in the kitchen eating a biscuit! IMO fasting means no calories at all, which is what I practise daily - 16-18 hours with no food at all and only calorie free liquids - ie green tea and water

Mopedman

By definition I think you are quite right - but it does help one to believe that one is doing something worthwhile to promote wellbeing. I notice that one contributor sneers a bit at including a glass of red wine in their "fasting" diet. I, for one, wouldn't dream of omitting my one glass a day - St Paul got it right (1 Tim. Ch.5 v.23).

jsygurl

murphydog999 wrote: »

I've been reading with interest, and confusion. A lot of people will be 'playing' with this as a means to loose weight - which isn't the underlying reason for the research, however beneficial.

However, I am led to ask, when is a 'fast' not a 'fast?' As surely a 'fast' means you are fasting, i.e. going without food. On the 5:2 plan you are eating on the lower calorie days (obviously!) so it's not a fast, and surely does not have the same body responses and actually 'fasting?'

Okay, take it to basics. On my fast days I have two fasts - one commences about 8.30pm the previous day, and ends at 12 noon, 15 1/2 hours. The other starts at 1pm, and ends about 7am the next morning 18 hours. If you do not agree that I fast, how execatly do you define fasting? No eating from midnight one day to midnight the next? Is how the body responds to a period of not eating dependant on what time of day that not eating is done?:think:

easy

Mopedman wrote: »

I am astonished! Knowing nothing about money saving, but always ready to learn, I stumbled on this site purely from a very new interest in IF. Is there a proven link between money saving interest and health? It seems that the majority of subscribers to this subject here are themselves more unhealthy than they deserve to be. Having watched the Horizon programme both my wife and I decided to give it a go. We consider ourselves to be jolly well at 77 and 79 respectively. Beloved does have peripheral neuropathy and I enjoy Parkinson's disease but we don't allow it to interfere unduly with our customary enjoyment of life. Ain't it wonderful? Today we embark upon IF. A new challenge beckons. :j Now we shall have to explore money-saving too. Deep joy!

Good luck with it, Mopedman and Mrs Mopedman

sammyjammy

jsygurl wrote: »

Okay, take it to basics. On my fast days I have two fasts - one commences about 8.30pm the previous day, and ends at 12 noon, 15 1/2 hours. The other starts at 1pm, and ends about 7am the next morning 18 hours. If you do not agree that I fast, how execatly do you define fasting? No eating from midnight one day to midnight the next? Is how the body responds to a period of not eating dependant on what time of day that not eating is done?:think:

I think it was a genuine question rather than someone having a go, I wondered the same thing in an earlier post. I think most people just assume a fast means you don't eat in a 24hr period.

What you say makes perfect sense .

If for example someone had 500 calories in a fasting day but they ate these calories over the whole day as a series of 100kcal snacks would that count as fasting?

Gloomendoom

Generally, I fast between all my meals.

murphydog999

jsygurl wrote: »

Okay, take it to basics. On my fast days I have two fasts - one commences about 8.30pm the previous day, and ends at 12 noon, 15 1/2 hours. The other starts at 1pm, and ends about 7am the next morning 18 hours. If you do not agree that I fast, how execatly do you define fasting? No eating from midnight one day to midnight the next? Is how the body responds to a period of not eating dependant on what time of day that not eating is done?:think:

My question wasn't directed at anyone at all, it's just that I can't see that the programme has got it quite right by saying that it was 'fasting', and it can be misconstrued, because in the true sense of the word, if people are still eating it's not a fast.

tyllwyd

When I started this thread I didn't realise how much disagreement it would stir up. It seems to me that people are falling into two camps - those who are following a very strictly controlled way of eating as a lifestyle choice, and those who look at it just as a way of eating a bit less overall. I'm not sure that there is going to be much common ground between the two! I think maybe it was a mistake to use the word 'fasting' in the title to the thread - it seems to have very strong associations for those who are following a controlled eating lifestyle.

Edited to say:
I'm going to go and edit the thread title to take out the reference to fasting, because I think it is taking the discussion beyond the starting point of the way of eating suggested by the Horizon programme. I think there is a lot more philosophy behind the whole idea of the paleo diet (and other patterns of eating which have been mentioned) but they deserve their own thread to do them justice.