To think the 5:2 diet is just dangerous nonsense?

[MrsMattBomer]

A girl I teach in sixth form was telling me about it today. I was a bit baffled by it, brought it up to a colleague who said it was amazing and really works.

Am I right in thinking it's basically just eating what you want and then starving yourself for two days? Is this not incredibly dangerous? Surely it's an eating disorder of some kind, not a diet!

So no diet is a "diet". It's for life. Sadly.

I gain on 1300 cals a day. That's not much, really..

absolutely
5:2 is a form of intermittent fasting and, no, its not a diet
its a Way of Eating
but its one that is easy to sustain for those of us with low calorie needs (and of course calorie needs decline with age)

If you do 500 calories twice a week then you have the leeway to really enjoy slap up meals once a week with no stress
which is what I've been doing for the last few years

bluntness is right - it's about lifestyle change, this is the first way of eating that I have found sustainable- all my life I've either been losing weight or it's gradually crept back up after a loss so a few years down the line I was having to lose again. The last four years has been the most stable ever. I have thrown out / donated every item of clothing above a 10/12, no need for emergency fat trousers any more .

I do one fast day a week to maintain - but don't calorie count anymore, just have one meal around 4-5 ish. If I've over indulged then I might have a couple of days like that. When I spoke to my (always) slim friend - she said she realised this was something she did naturally, if she'd been out for a meal then the next day she really ate very little. That's just not something I ever learned to do, I was fixed on the "eat little and often" advice I'd been hearing since the 70's .

The reason 5:2 works for a lot of us is because we find it remarkably easy to keep to, it has reset our relationship with food and given us a really simple tool to keep at a sensible weight.

As well as the increased energy of course - that was really unexpected!

See, I'd rather eat less on other days than do 500 on two. I have done 500 per day but, on the other days, I was so afraid of slipping out of control that I ate very little on those days either.

Not for me; 500 is too difficult. I'm sure there are benefits, though. Not knocking it at all.

I ve had digestive issues since having my gall bladder removed a few years ago. I did the 5 2 to lose weight but found it resolved all my other issues. Now I do the 6 1 to continue this benefit. It seems to give my body a rest!

3 meals a day is a modern, western, affluent concept

Wholly agree with this statement!

I'm a slender size 8 thanks to 5:2, have maintained without any fasting or deprivation since April 2015. Yet still have friends who are bigger than me insisting you should always eat breakfast and that I'm doing something terribly wrong in my diet because I don't. Just not true! It is a social construct.

If I were to eat breakfast I'd be forcing myself to do so... I often don't get hungry until around 3pm.

The only time I ever eat a breakfast is at a hotel buffet when I have to eat it all

In Georgian times even well to do people usually just ate breakfast and then dinner in the evening.

I can't imagine eating breakfast. Never have, since leaving home.

I'd be the size of a house!

I'm sure the insistence on breakfast is partly to blame for our obesity crisis.

I burn average of 2800 a day according to Fitbit.

If I didn't eat breakfast I'd feel awful by lunch.

I don't eat after about 6 at night and breakfast at 8, so that's 14h 'fast'.

I'm slim BMI 19 with low body fat.

Would I really benefit from the 5:2, in term of metabolic effects?

Genuine question to TIP

OP, we haven't physically evolved much since cave days. We haven't 'evolved' to modern life, we have made cultural changes but our bodies haven't adapted. The change to eating three solid meals a day (plus snacks in some cases) is a very recent one, with our ancestors even 100-200 years ago going through lean times where there was not an abundance of food so our bodies have had no chance to evolve. Even so, the time between 'caveman' and now is a blip in time in the process of evolution.

That's the whole reason why we're getting fatter now in western nations - plenty of food and bodies that are still geared up to cling to spare fuel in case of lack of food.

If you're going to try to use science to back you up at least understand the basics of it.

I like the idea behind intermittent fasting, that it teaches you about fullness. I'm planning to try it soon as I think for me it will help break bad habits as I get stuck in ruts with food.

If you're going to try to use science to back you up at least understand the basics of it.

Given that the 'benefits' of IF are largely based on pseudoscience in non peer reviewed books written by people trying to make a bit of money, this is pretty funny.

Crikey! I had no idea that The Journal of Gerontology was not peer reviewed Nor that it published pseudo science for money spinning chancers!

I shall make a complaint... them and that other charlatan, The International Journal of Obesity... christ, now I look at it there all sorts of journals I once thought were peer reviewed that are raking it in. I spent years of my life reading them, teaching from them, running NHS backed interventions based on their info... I feel dirty, used!

Either that or you don't know what you are talking about, Rafals

We started 5:2 in September 2013 I am 43kgs lighter and DH is 35kgs down.

You Dont go back to 'eating normally'. It becomes your normal.

Easy peasy. Bloods all now in great ranges and we just had the loadings removed from our life insurance policies.

Doing an extra fast day best week then will not bother for 2 weeks over Christmas. Won't be an issue.

Life is much happier this way.

I Dont think anyone made any money out of us with 5:2. I didn't buy anything. Just switched to a salad 2 nights a week. I skip 4 meals a week. Really not that difficult.

I think you are well aware that's not what I meant.

It's perfectly reasonable for small scale studies, animal studies and short term studies to be published in good quality peer reviewed journals as proper science. It's part of the process. It's extrapolating those studies to attempt to prove the point that's an issue, whether you are extrapolating from animals into humans, a diet that isn't the same as one in the study or thinking that what happens to small group over 8 weeks is relevant.

As far as I'm aware the NHS uses evidence based policies rather than extrapolating from studies that are interesting but don't yet tell us much, whichever journal it is published in. It's why their nutrition policies haven't changed.

Although if you can find me a long term human study with a large number of participants and at least a 2 year follow up I am willing to change my mind.

For the moment though, if people want an evidence base for decreasing health risks, then it's mainly Mediterranean diet with plenty of exercise.

As far as I'm aware the NHS uses evidence based policies It uses "Do no harm" as its overiding policy. So its advice is always based on the most anodyne of reasoning. It has to, for obvious reasons. It says as much too!

As for the multi cohort, longoitudianl study on IF, there is one being undertaken at the moment, but I am damned if I can find the proposal again. It is a collaboration between a few European universities... may have started 2 years ago.. but that may just have been the plannning stage rather than any data collection. It was not going to be a review of extant info, but the issues with changing people's dietary habits would, as ever, have made it difficult to get past the ethics stage!

Until then, gerontolgy, diabetes and CHD research is all we have to go on, in human terms. And as they are all somewhat diluted by other confounding factors I would only expect the ongoing scepticism!

difficult to get past the ethics stage

um, No, not the problem. Not at all. Posters are talking about a "patient preference" trial, where participants choose what they will do & then someone observes how the different groups change. A pt pref trial makes a lot of sense if you're looking at health impacts from behaviours. Compliance is a PITA in all trials, most of all when people are grumpy about what they've been told to do.

The problem with patient-pref trial is not ethics but the statistical comparisons. Because all other aspects aren't randomised...you know from start that certain types of people are more likely to choose one arm than another. Takes a lot more money to watch lots of pts for a long while to get reliable results from a pt pref trial.

Medschool
I asked you up thread to link to ANY food intake "gold plated" trial
could you do so please
before slagging off the existing research

greatpoint
I was half way through a reply to you earlier and then got a computer virus - now removed.

Fitbits are up to 40% out on their data - do not rely on them.
Look up your sedentary TDEE (for your age, height and weight)
aim to eat within that
fasting is really good for the metabolism as hunger is what our endochrine and limbic and insulin systems evolved for
therefore a good bout of hunger makes them do their job
and hopefully protects against dementia
(for those of us over 50, a pretty high priority)

Look up your sedentary TDEE (for your age, height and weight)
aim to eat within that

Surely only necessary if she wishes to lose weight?

It's a faddy way of calorie reduction.
The nonsense about health benefits is bollocks. No peer reviewed studies, no decent trials. It's good in that you lose weight, but nothing special about it.

tara
No, its a really, really useful number to have in your head when planning meals on a weekly basis.
My TDEE is 1500 when I'm working (1900 on a gym day)
so I remember to roughly eat within that so do not gain weight

smart
have you read the peer reviewed links that bigchoc posted ?

I don't think it would work for me- I don't have clearly defined peaks and troughs of activity and so most days see me exerting myself beyond the levels of a sedentary TDEE.

My (NHS) gastroenterologist recommended it to me (I haven;t tried it yet) - said it was the most successful "diet" that any of his obese patients have tried and he heartily recommends it (along with increasing your exercise in as many differnt ways as you can think of).

I'll tell him when I see him that he's pushing an eating disorder on me!

Bastard. Trying to help me find a way of cutting back on calories that I can most easily factor into my life - selfish git.

The health benefits from it recommend that even people with a healthy weight should use it. You should read up on it.