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!

It could do, absolutely.

We really haven't evolved very much at all MrsMattBomer, and THAT is the problem.

We're meant to be on the move frequently, lifting, carrying and generally being mobile. And not eating whenever we feel the slightest pang of hunger.

We have a western world obesity problem precisely because we haven't evolved enough from our original state, to be able to eat whatever and loll about, and not put on weight.

5:2 is far more normal and natural for the average human, than 3 meals a day + snacks.

There is a Horizen documentary that explains the science, available on YouTube. 'Eat, fast and live longer'.

https://preventbreastcancer.org.uk/2dayy_diet/

This was developed by U.K. Cancer charity it was the original research. It works.

"Much easier to eat normally all the time but that doesn't sell books."
According to the googles, to lose weight in a reasonable manner I should be eating roughly 15,800 calories a day based on my particulars (I just looked it up.) I assume the 5:2 diet is based on needs for the week rather than the day, so that's 11,000 a week. If I'm only eating 500 cal on two of those days, the remaining 10,000 calories a week is 2,000 a day.
Now, embarrassingly, my daily calorie intake is probably somewhere upwards of 3,000 calories a day currently, so I'd have to cut down considerably either way. But - I know me, and I know that for me '2,000 calories a day, on days I'm not fasting' (I have no problems with the fasting bit - I do that sometimes anyway, for other reasons) sounds much easier than '1,580 calories a day, every day, no matter what'.
I may just try it. Not buying a book about it though.

obviously that first bit should say 1,580 calories* NOT 15,800.

I'm pretty amazed that A. you've never heard of it, B. you seem so ignorant about general health, C. you write off things you don't know or understand in such absolute terms. Your OP isn't saying you heard about it and are interested to learn more. It's saying a scientifically proven beneficial woe is a dangerous eating disorder

fwiw, the constant grazing and snacking is imo a huge contributing factor (as well as the pure shit most people scoff) to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Giving your poor digestive system a break for a few hours is enormously beneficial. It's not necessarily a weight loss diet, though it can be used that way, but can provide many health benefits.

Maybe you should spend a little time informing yourself of the benefits rather than condemning something you don't know. And the point of it is it isn't a temporary weight loss diet, but mean to be a long term woe.

Maybe you could try it. It might suit you too :)

I often eat a lot more than three meals brat, but I am active, and I just don't eat because it's a meal time and I 'should', which for me often means I don't eat lunch until 4 then I'm too tired to eat dinner because I have non sleeping kids. So I listen to my body rather than some schedited meals list or calories to aim for. This does mean I eat chocolate whenever I want though ; ) I'm not skinny these days, but healthy bmi

More dangerous surely if you simply did not eat for 2 days. You are still eating, simply not so much. If sensible you can still eat 'properly' making sure you get enough vits and minerals etc.

That comma is so important isn't it...

There is a Horizen documentary that explains the science, available on YouTube. 'Eat fast and live longer'.

This is interesting

foodmed.net/2016/12/14/in-praise-of-low-carb-canadian-doctors-rise-up/

I think we are only in the early stages of understanding diet and the effects on our bodies and I suspect that during DS's lifetime advise will change and we have to be able to accept that. There is already a swing towards thinking that saturated fats are not necessarily bad for you and in fact we should be emphasising a "natural diet" eg butter over spreads, whole grains, red meat etc

And I know portion control is still a huge thing for those of us who are really obese (rather than vanity obese) but it still isn't as simple as the old calories in and calories out, insulin plays a huge part in what your body does with the calories it takes in and it reacts differently to different food groups so ignore that to your peril unless you are someone who finds keeping slim easy. But if you are then I don;t see why you'd get aerated about how someone else loses weight when they need to.

And calling it fasting is a misnomer as others have pointed out - it's really VLCD. There have been recent limited scale studies that show a VLCD can reverse type 2 diabetes in many cases (though obviously almost impossible to stick to long term and more research needs to be done.)

sorry - "advice"!

YABU. I followed it when I lived at home for a while as my parents do it. The "fasting" days were the days I looked forward to most as the planned meals were always delicious, fresh, simple and tasty. I never felt hungry.

And re: your comment about how we've evolved not to eat like hunter gatherers - when you look at obesity/heart disease, etc. figures it doesn't seem to be working out all that well for us!

I love the 5:2, though I don't obsess over it. Two days a week of 600 calories (that's my own amount, I think it's 500 they recommend for a woman but whatever) is really easy after the first week of it. Drink a lot of water, walk more, don't booze most nights of the week, steam some salmon and veg if you can't be arsed thinking if anything else, and cut back on sugar overall. It's just...comfortable.

When I worked away from my home office, I regularly used to skip lunch, have a biscuit at 4pm, then dinner at 7 - it is absolutely no different to being slightly too busy to eat.

I did it for a year, got to a nice easy size 12, stopped and put weight back on - as other ppl have said, it's age-related. And how! Quite inspired to do it again now.

Slightly mixed feelings about this. I know Michael Moseley is a proper doctor and there is proper science and everything behind it, and I know that there are supposed to be benefits to occasional fasting - plenty of religions require fast periods and people don't seem to suffer as a result. So limiting your intake to 500 calories for two days a week doesn't seem that bad.

But then again, if you simply want to lose weight, I think just eating less is a good idea. Cut down on snacks, sugary foods and drinks, and give yourself smaller portions. Don't have second helpings. Learn to enjoy the feeling of being hungry and don't immediately reach for a bag of crisps. You don't have to go mad - just rethink your long-term eating habits so you lose weight gradually and keep it off. This has worked for me. Of course, it's not very eye-catching so I'm never going to get a best-selling book out of it.

I've been doing it about 1 week. I'm definitely much less bloated.

What the fast days have taught me so far is how much we are conditioned to eat. We really don't need to eat as much as we think we do.

Michael Mosely is only sort of a doctor. Iirc he finished medical school but didn't practise much after that and went into tv production.
I remember reading that he still paid his dues to the gmc in case he ever needed another career. He doesn't seem to use Dr as a title now though.

Moseley is however married to a GP ......

he developed 5:2 as a way to deal with his visceral fat as several members of his family died young
he did not plan to lose weight, it was just a happy side effect

the juggernaut started a few months later

To answer the original question: No, it's not, if you follow the instructions. Look into it in more detail for how it actually works, the original book is best "The Fast Diet".

Actually it fits in with several religious traditions going back many centuries.

It -is- dangerous for people with eating disorders and has to be handled carefully or avoided then.

The core of it is that you simply eat less calories, which is how any good diet works. But there seem to be health benefits beyond the reduction of calorie intake, eg the cholesterol ... Not sure that doctors understand how that works, but it does seem to.

So no, look into it further if you want to not be unreasonable :D Maybe it's for you, maybe it isn't. But there seem to be some serious scientific studies that back it up.

(a version of fasting-diets also cures many Type 2 diabetics, which is something that many pharmaceutical companies aren't advertising. They aren't in much danger though, dieting in whatever form just isn't all that easy).

Hmm

I think it'd be better if the sector were regulated so that people didn't lose a load of weight and then go back to eating normally thinking they'll never put it back on.

How exactly would you go about regulating how much people eat? How would you enforce it? What sanctions would there be for people breaking the regulation?

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!

Well I do know things about it, I have done my research in the past

So that was a disingenuous attempt to make it look like you didn't know anything about it? Right?

I would prefer it if books branding themselves as a diet or health plan had to undergo stringent checks and have actual evidence of them working.

Yes? just what standards of checks would you impose? by whom? How? what would the standards consist of, and why?

Oh wait, bigchoc and others who have looked into this in depth are on the thread .... If you really want to talk to informed people, listen to them.

that'll teach me to read the full thread first

I think just eating less is a good idea

Yes it is.

5:2 is indeed "eating less", rather more "less" on some days than others but pretty much it's eating less. And the fasting helps reduce insulin levels for those who have a problem with that if I recall correctly.

Do whatever works for you. But OP thinks 5:2 is essentially an eating disorder

Thanks for the reports on this one - we're keeping a close eye.

Or perhaps Fliss posted on wrong thread?

flissmumsnet
I'm slightly jawdropped that this thread has been reported in any way.
It seems one of the most mellow diet related AIBUs I have ever seen

please leave it running

There are quite a few discrepancies in the OP's posts if you look closely, there -are- a lot of trolls around, and dietting can be an emotive topic

but it is good tempered! :)