5:2 diet

Mado

lolly101 wrote: »

That is not all of the evidence that I could provide, I just asusmed that anyone thinking rationally would accept that as fact as it is pretty plain and simple. I had no intention of starting the battle of knowledge (no matter how irrelevant it all is!), that you seem to be driving this converstion towards. I came here to chat about the 5:2 diet, not provide links, quotes, or whatever to try and prove a point that is already pretty blinking obvious! Saying this, I would be happy to provide further evidence if I thought it would help, but I suspect that you would attempt to discredit anything I offered by veering off topic, then telling me that you are right in saying it.

Your point was that I am wrong in saying that humans, on an individual level, do not need carbs to survive. We survived without carbs for thousands of years, and many people still do today - so how am I wrong in saying this? Offering facts about farming strategies and the eating habits of the population of SE Asia is all very well and good, but it does not disprove my point. I admit that I am no expert on science or evolution, but as it formed part of my degree I would say that I have a pretty good level of understanding, not that I would ever have imagined that it would be required to engage in chat on a diet forum!

I object to poor science in general and I object to making a "diagnostic" based on very little info and giving what I find an ill judged advice as the answer.
I have had a few headaches at the beginning of the 5:2 diet and have found that they went by themselves. I also find that what makes this diet a pleasure is the fact that there are no restrictions on your feast days.

Of course you can survive without carbs. You can survive without many things. But that isn't the point, is it? Do you need to advise people on survival?
The fact that you cannot back any of your assertions with any data or fact is telling.

bugslet

Hi

I tried the alternate day diet a few years back, but found it too difficult to maintain. I haven't tried the 5:2 diet. What I now do is the fast 5 diet ( google fast-5 ), there is a free downloadable book, but basically you eat within a 5 hour period. After the first day or two, I find this easy and you do naturally eat less on this system. On another forum I am on, another lady tried it and found it easy to stick to and lost that last stubborn stone.

Just thought I'd add that in case it was of use.

On the do you eat carbs or protein debate, it's about what you prefer IMO. I did Dukan for a while and lost weight, but never felt too lively on it, whereas when I stick to a wholegrain based diet, I feel better. Some people are the complete reverse and feel better with a protein based diet - it's about listening to your body and seeing what suits you best. Just my opinion!;)

Mojisola

Mado wrote: »

If that is all the "proof" you can provide then really you have no understanding about science or evolution. We only thrived as a specie when we started farming and developed ways to feed ourselves all year long using... grains.

Not really accurate. We had a population explosion after we started farming but our health deteriorated.

Before farming, we were taller, stronger and had fewer degenerative diseases. The difference is quite clear in the bones.

However, in the modern world where the meat we eat mostly isn't coming from wild, grass-fed animals but grain-fed, comparatively static beasts, we can't really go back to a true paleo diet.

If people have a health problem which is improved by going on a low carb diet, it makes sense to do so. I find my blood sugars go far too high if I eat too many carbs so I, reluctantly, stay off them.

If your health is good and you eat a varied diet - so not wheat three times a day every day - you may not need to reduce your carbs.

No one diet is perfect for all human beings.

Mado

Mojisola wrote: »

Not really accurate. We had a population explosion after we started farming but our health deteriorated.

Before farming, we were taller, stronger and had fewer degenerative diseases. The difference is quite clear in the bones.

I have read this propaganda before but it is highly debatable.
The reason there was a lot fewer evidence of degenerative diseases in bones found is that weak individuals simply couldn't survive. Also, there would have been very few sample found.
You may disagree with the statement, but we litterally thrived as a specie with farming as our numbers exploded and without being so dependent on finding food, we started to develop skills taht made lives more comfortable.

It's not just the meat that bears no resemblance to what the early hunter gatherers. The fruit and vegetables available to you have long been engineered for taste and flavour. And above all, your levels of activity bear no comparison either.

If indeed you have health problems with carbs, stay off them. But don't go advising people who haven't to avoid them as they are perfectly healthy.

Mojisola

Mado wrote: »

If indeed you have health problems with carbs, stay off them. But don't go advising people who haven't to avoid them as they are perfectly healthy.

I don't!

Mojisola wrote: »

If your health is good and you eat a varied diet - so not wheat three times a day every day - you may not need to reduce your carbs.

No one diet is perfect for all human beings.

.....................

lolly101

Mado wrote: »

I object to poor science in general and I object to making a "diagnostic" based on very little info and giving what I find an ill judged advice as the answer.

Poor science?

So we tried to offer someone help, is that really such a bad thing? Yes, it may not have been due to carb withdrawal (someone also mentioned that it could have been caffeine), but it was worth a shot to get rid of those awful headaches. Nobody said that they were right, or that anyone had to reduce their carbs, just that it might be due to that. Anyway, isn't the whole point of this thread to support each other along the way, to help each other out and share our experiences? To be fair, even if we were wrong, I'd say that our suggestion was much more helpful than your muttering of 'I wouldn't.', followed by a little hissy about the demonisation of carbs!

If you had a problem with the 'advice' you should have mentioned that, as the point you focussed on was just plain silly...

Mado wrote: »

Of course you can survive without carbs. You can survive without many things. But that isn't the point, is it? Do you need to advise people on survival?

As that was exactly your point...

Mado wrote: »

lolly101 wrote: »

but, we don't 'need' them (human evolution has proven that!), so cutting them out isn't a bad thing either.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with that statement ... .would you care to provide evidence for it?

aliama

lolly101 wrote: »

Your point was that I am wrong in saying that humans, on an individual level, do not need carbs to survive. We survived without carbs for thousands of years, and many people still do today - so how am I wrong in saying this?

Except that even before humans developed farming, resulting in a population explosion, grains absolutely would have formed part of our diet, in the form of wild rice, wild wheat etc, so we very probably didn't survive without carbs for thousands of years.

Think about it: if we weren't eating crops when they were wild, why would we have started cultivating them in the first place? And there is archeological evidence of human consumption of wild grains well before the rise of farming.

True, grains would probably have made up a far smaller percentage of the hunter gatherer diet than we eat today, but it simply isn't true that they never ate grains at all.

Gloomendoom

There would also have been carbs from the sugar in roots, berries, fruits, honey and the like.

Mojisola

Gloomendoom wrote: »

There would also have been carbs from the sugar in roots, berries, fruits, honey and the like.

Low carb doesn't mean no carb.

Most low carbers find that they eat far more vegetables and berries once they change their diet from being primarily grain based and consequently improve the variety of foods they eat.

lolly101

aliama wrote: »

Except that even before humans developed farming, resulting in a population explosion, grains absolutely would have formed part of our diet, in the form of wild rice, wild wheat etc, so we very probably didn't survive without carbs for thousands of years.

Think about it: if we weren't eating crops when they were wild, why would we have started cultivating them in the first place? And there is archeological evidence of human consumption of wild grains well before the rise of farming.

True, grains would probably have made up a far smaller percentage of the hunter gatherer diet than we eat today, but it simply isn't true that they never ate grains at all.

Grains were not widely available, so yes, people would have eaten them in the days before farming, but many would not have had access to them - hence the low carb diet.

Gloomendoom wrote: »

There would also have been carbs from the sugar in roots, berries, fruits, honey and the like.

True, there are carbs in pretty much everything. Even meat has a negligible ammount, so there's so such thing as a zero carb diet.