5:2 diet

adouglasmhor

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

But is it something you're happy to continue with permanently as a lifestyle choice? If not, when you eventually revert to old habits you will regain all the weight you lost, plus more.

There is no such thing as a 'quick fix' or 'magic weight-loss formula'. The only way to lose weight and keep it off is to make permanent lifestyle changes which means eating healthy food and exercising more.

But fasting regularly for life but at a lesser frequency than the 5;2 reducing cycle is a permanent lifestyle change. Exercise is not really for losing weight, for example my GF upped her exercise from no gym time 5 years ago to now about 5 hours intese cardio a week, she has dropped from a size 14/16 pear shape to an atheltic size 6 or 8, she weighs about 1kg less than she did at her biggest.

~Chameleon~

adouglasmhor wrote: »

But fasting regularly for life but at a lesser frequency than the 5;2 reducing cycle is a permanent lifestyle change. Exercise is not really for losing weight, for example my GF upped her exercise from no gym time 5 years ago to now about 5 hours intese cardio a week, she has dropped from a size 14/16 pear shape to an atheltic size 6 or 8, she weighs about 1kg less than she did at her biggest.

I never said exercise is a tool for weight loss, however it IS necessary for a healthy lifestyle to prevent future ill health and disease. And besides, exercising regularly, especially if doing resistance weight training will have the effect of increasing your weight but reducing your overall body mass, as your GF has experienced.

This will also boost your metabolism which means you burn off more calories even during rest and recovery

adouglasmhor

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

especially if doing resistance weight training will have the effect of increasing your weight but reducing your overall body mass, as your GF has experienced.

Sorry I don't understand this bit, Mass is the physical constant of the quantity of matter in an object, weight is the gravitational force on an object.

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

This will also boost your metabolism which means you burn off more calories even during rest and recovery

That's the principal at the core behind some of the more intense bodyweight interval/cardio training we both do, especialy Metafit™ stuff.

~Chameleon~

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand this bit, Mass is the physical constant of the quantity of matter in an object, weight is the gravitational force on an object.

Because muscle is far more dense than fat, thus taking up less space. This is why your GF didn't see much loss in actual weight, but her body mass was far less.

adouglasmhor

I think that is volume or displacement changing not mass, but I see what you mean, her density has increased. (Though I am not going to say she is dense).

~Chameleon~

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I think that is volume or displacement changing not mass, but I see what you mean, her density has increased. (Though I am not going to say she is dense).

Maybe I chose the wrong word. I might be a scientist but I'm not a physicist

kboss2010

It sounds like another fad diet to me. I'd like to see the results of proper medical long-term clinical trials (not just one or two short-term ones then a documentary proclaiming the amazing, life-changing benefits!! like most of the medical rubbish that appears on the TV).

Call me skeptical but it just sounds like a simple calorie reduction diet to me (albeit on 2 days a week rather than 7).

Edit: Re above post, just in case anyone is interested in the science:

Mass = measured in kg or lbs
Weight = Measured in Newtons (mass x gravitational acceleration (~ 10 on Earth))
Volume = the physical "space" that an object takes up (measured in m3 or cubic feet etc.)

When you lose fat and gain the same mass of muscle (mass is, in everyday life, referred incorrectly to as "weight") you reduce in size (hence smaller waist, hips, thighs etc.) and therefore your density increases because density = mass x volume.

This is because muscle tissue has more mass than the equivalent volume of fat.

Hope that makes sense and helps!

adouglasmhor

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Maybe I chose the wrong word. I might be a scientist but I'm not a physicist

Me neither. I have a B.Sc. but am not a scientist.

~Chameleon~

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Me neither. I have a B.Sc. but am not a scientist.

If you've studied a science degree then technically you're a scientist!

Not all scientists wear white lab coats and work in laboratories


As a Veterinary Surgeon and 'soon-to-be' Nutritionist, I'll hold two BSc degrees in different areas of science. I also hold a MSc degree too

adouglasmhor

It's a B.Sc(eng). My mates with Phys and chem degrees always tell me I am not a scientist.
Though I point out they have the same degree as a B.Sc. in sport science has.