5:2 diet

System

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It's only on 2 seperate days a week I eat only 600 (I eat between 2,340 and 2,760 on other days.)

lets say thats 2500

so per week, 5 x 2500 calories plus 2 x 600 = 13700 calories per week

why not just eat 13700 calories divided by 7 days = 1957 calories per day??? more balance! not having stupid starvation days!

lostinrates

berbastrike wrote: »

lets say thats 2500

so per week, 5 x 2500 calories plus 2 x 600 = 13700 calories per week

why not just eat 13700 calories divided by 7 days = 1957 calories per day??? more balance! not having stupid starvation days!

As has been suggested before, instead of asking here, why not read the research yourself and look at the health benefits other than weight loss to intermittant fasting?

Why do I do it? For me its more comfortable and easier, sustainable and for ME feels better than eating the same amount every day. For others it might not and there are plenty of other food plans, all well supported for people with different needs fro. Their diets, to support them and their needs. .

Mado

Mr_helpful wrote: »

I was nt recommending protein supplements.Your allegedly unbiased blog was advertisng them... You were ignorant of the need for omega 3 and calcium in the diet to aid fat loss. the link explained why. however for the average person if you eat protein in the form of cooked meat only a smallamount is in a condition that is assimible Because of heat corruption much of the aminoa acids you eat will be part broken down and stored as energy (fat) and the rest excreted in the urine. Urine contains a varying amount of nitronen which is not present in fat or carbs so you may be able top guess where it comes from now. people who understand nutrition realise that calorie counting is largely a waste of time as only part of the body's needs from food are calories. You would notice very different results if you gave 3 sets of people their 2000 calories a day in the form of 1) pure sugar, 20 just butter and 3 whey protein. All would have ingested the same amount of calories but results would differ

I think you are of these people who think they know everything... however you appear to know really about you beleive in. Not that it's necesseraly wrong, but it overlooks a lot of very good and valid research.
BTW, your link didn't give any insight into the link with calcium or omega 3; it did however refer to IGF hormones which are the ones that have been measurably reduced by IF.

So inform yourself a little before you preach in an area you know nothing about.

Mr_helpful

paulineb wrote: »

There are diets such as cambridge and lighter life where people eat that every day

Also, its not 500kcals as far as Im aware, its 25 per cent of your TDE which will vary from person to person.

Yes, one of our clients lost over 10 stone with lighter life. Unfortunately their hair fell out and their skin went grey and they have put most of it back on againg. this is what happens with starvation diets and intermittent fasting is not really that different. less severe I grant you but still likely to get harder and harder as time goes on
the much quoted research seems not really very conclusive. There is also a lot of research that goes the other way and doesnt see much in the way of benefit.

RichardD1970

berbastrike wrote: »

lets say thats 2500

so per week, 5 x 2500 calories plus 2 x 600 = 13700 calories per week

why not just eat 13700 calories divided by 7 days = 1957 calories per day??? more balance! not having stupid starvation days!

Because I can't be bothered to count 1957 calories every day and feel guilty if I have take away or go out for a meal.

With 5:2 I can eat normally for 5 days a week, have take away, eat out, have treats as normal, as pre 5:2.

I only have to think about it for 2 days a week which is very easy.

I have lost over a stone and my blood pressure has come down significantly, my wife has lost nearly 3 stone.

On fast days we tend to eat one meal in the evenings and just have drinks such as Bovril during the day if feeling peckish, (and that's all it is, never full hunger!)

Anyone looking for meal ideas we use The Hairy Dieters cook book, lots of very nice meals for 300 - 500 calories.

zmikeo

Am considering adding two of you to my ignore list, but then I might miss the fun.
As for berbastrike you seem to like using the stupid word, what gives are you trying to convert us :P
You don't have too like the 5-2, and can quite merrily go on your way.
Never did like preaching in any form !

Georgiegirl256

spirit wrote: »

i have either toast (no butter) with a couple of tinned plum tomatoes and a poached egg or 40g of porridge with a few sultanas in and then nothing to eat, just no cal drinks until the evening. so i eat at around 6am and not again until 7pm when i might have a tuna salad or a half a steak and masses of veg. Fish for dinner is another option again more veg.

So regarding vegs and fruit, are they basically no calories? You can eat as much as you want?

I'm just thinking back to when he did one of his previous diets (could have been weight watchers?) and that was the case then.

Georgiegirl256

zmikeo wrote: »

I'm pretty boring and have the same thing on both days that I make up in advance.
A curry lentil soup with spinach that comes to about 125 kcal, and for dinner I have a white fish (coley) curry added spinach with 50 g of bulgur wheat, unless everyone else is having brown rice, then I will as well. I also have enough kcal left to have 100 g of grilled butternut with my curry.

Sounds really yummy! We like butternut, fish and curry.

lostinrates

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

So regarding vegs and fruit, are they basically no calories? You can eat as much as you want?

I'm just thinking back to when he did one of his previous diets (could have been weight watchers?) and that was the case then.

The calories in fruit and veg count.

Just because calories count doesn't mean its 'all' that counts. It's still desirable to eat 'healthily' and calories from fruit and vegetables are both bulky and filling but healthier but, say, any packet of crisps that might fall under the calorific allowance. Similarly, one of the meals I linked to can hardly be described as 'deprivation' as its taste rich!

You can five two and paleo as some on this thread do, or you can five two and low protein as some of the early proponents do. IF will have its benefits, and each of those diets their own.


Unlike something like lighter life IF is not just a weight loss plan, it is a lifestyle plan (some what as I read paleo people feel ) and is followed not just for weight loss but for other long term health benefits

Mr_helpful

Mado wrote: »

I think you are of these people who think they know everything... however you appear to know really about you beleive in. Not that it's necesseraly wrong, but it overlooks a lot of very good and valid research.
BTW, your link didn't give any insight into the link with calcium or omega 3; it did however refer to IGF hormones which are the ones that have been measurably reduced by IF.

So inform yourself a little before you preach in an area you know nothing about.

Looks like I read the link
You can increase sensitivity by diet, which is one of the major reasons to take omega-3 oils. We think of circulation as that which flows through arteries and veins, and that is not a minor part of our circulation, but it might not even be the major part. The major part of circulation is what goes in and out of the cell.
The cell membrane is a fluid mosaic. The major part of our circulation is determined by what goes in and out. It doesn't make any difference what gets to that cell if it can't get into the cell. We know that one of the major ways that you can affect cellular circulation is by modulating the kinds of fatty acids that you eat. So you can increase receptor sensitivity by increasing the fluidity of the cell membrane, which means increasing the omega-3 content, because most people are very deficient.
They say that you are what you eat and that mostly pertains to fat because the fatty acids that you eat are the ones that will generally get incorporated into the cell membrane. The cell membranes are going to be a reflection of your dietary fat and that will determine the fluidity of your cell membrane. You can actually make them over fluid.
If you eat too much and you incorporate too many omega-3 oils then they will become highly oxidizable (so you have to eat Vitamin E and monounsaturates as well).
There was an interesting study pertaining to this where they had a breed of rat that was genetically susceptible to cancer. Researchers fed them a high-omega-3 diet, plus iron, without any extra Vitamin E and they were able to almost shrink down the tumors to nothing because tumors are rapidly dividing. This is like a form of chemotherapy, and the membranes that were being formed in these tumor cells were very high in omega-3 oils. The iron acted as a catalyst for that oxidation, and the cells were exploding from getting oxidized so rapidly. So omega-3 oils can be a double-edged sword. In fact, most food is a double-edged sword.




And for calcium here is a better link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/142198.php