Alternate day, 5/2 diet

YeehaaMcgee

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So bums and tums classes are no good?

Yes. Good rule of thumb is that any dietary kind of thing aimed at women, will be complete and total, utter borlorx.

No they're not bollocks at all. Bums and Tums classes will include exercises that work muscle groups in your core and bum so will help to tone them. So from that POV they're totally legit.

They'll also help you to lose fat in those areas, as well as every other area you may have excess fat in. Targeted weight loss is a myth.

you're directly contradicting yourself there.

sandy771

styxd wrote:

I cant really see how this diet can work for anyone who does alot of exercise. Fine if you're a lazy fecker, but if you're riding your bike alot it'll be next to useless.

Why?

I went from riding my bike a lot and not losing any weight. To riding my bike a lot, dieting, and losing 10LBs over 4 weeks. Seems to me to prove that it is working.

Just to be clear - when I am not on one of my two days of fasting (which don't have to be consecutive) I eat and drink what I want. Obviously this doesn't involve a take away every night or excessive amounts of alcohol every day, becuase i dont want that every day. But it usually involves prob 10 or more pints a week, a few glasses of wine, some cholcolate and cake. I also often eat out (normally three courses in one of our local restaurants). So if I can maintain my fun lifestyle and diet on the days that I want to then it seems win win.

Doc thinks its a good thing. I am not cutting out carbs, eating only protein or living off cabage soup like some of the other fad diets. I generally don't feel hungry on my fasting days (I have done them back to back so far) as I am eating a reasonable size jacket spud with chilli or beans as well as salad and a bit of fruit mid afternoon (which is prob more than a lot of third world people have day to day. I don't even feel overly tired when I exercise (16 miles on Tuesday night - second night of fasting).

As I see it the secret to weight loss (note that I am happy I can maintain my weight) is finding a diet that you can stick with. If this works for me (as it is working for a lot of people) then that has got to be good. Once the weight is off I just need to maintain it and I do enough exercise to achieve that.

It either works for you or it doesn't. If you dont want to try it don't if you do then watch the Horizon proggy or do some research before you do.

YeehaaMcgee

Erm, your lunch on the fasting day is what most people would consider a normal meal.

njee20

All due you're talking about 4-6 hours of riding a week, that's not that much. I think I'd struggle to function, particularly if I did the fast days back to back.

Fantastic Mr Fox

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So bums and tums classes are no good?

Yes. Good rule of thumb is that any dietary kind of thing aimed at women, will be complete and total, utter borlorx.

No they're not bollocks at all. Bums and Tums classes will include exercises that work muscle groups in your core and bum so will help to tone them. So from that POV they're totally legit.

They'll also help you to lose fat in those areas, as well as every other area you may have excess fat in. Targeted weight loss is a myth.

you're directly contradicting yourself there.

How am I?

YeehaaMcgee

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

Targeted weight loss is a myth

Wel, if that is so, then how do certain excercises...

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

help you to lose fat in those areas

You can tone up a specific part of your body, but that's just getting the muscles nice and, well, toned. Burning fat doesn't work like that.
If you have a huge gut, and also fatty arms and legs, then you could do hundreds of stomach crunches a day, and you'd still have a big gut. But you'd be losing fat from all over your body.
However, because people tend to have more abdominal fat than anywhere else, you would lose a considerable amount of weight from everywhere else on your body, and still have a big belly.
You would of course, also have fantastically toned stomach muscles, but they'd be invisible behind several inches of flabby fat.

Fantastic Mr Fox

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

Targeted weight loss is a myth

Wel, if that is so, then how do certain excercises...

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

help you to lose fat in those areas

You can tone up a specific part of your body, but that's just getting the muscles nice and, well, toned. Burning fat doesn't work like that.
If you have a huge gut, and also fatty arms and legs, then you could do hundreds of stomach crunches a day, and you'd still have a big gut. But you'd be losing fat from all over your body.
However, because people tend to have more abdominal fat than anywhere else, you would lose a considerable amount of weight from everywhere else on your body, and still have a big belly.
You would have course, also have fantastically toned stomach muscles, but they'd be invisible behind several inches of flabby fat.

Ah yes, if you edit what I have said then it would appear that you're correct...

However if you read it in its full context - 'They'll also help you to lose fat in those areas, as well as every other area you may have excess fat in' then I've not said you can target weight loss, have I?

If you do any exercise in one area of your body it will help you to lose fat in that area, just not ONLY in that area.

YeehaaMcgee

I may have misunderstood then, but why add the "in those areas"?

Fantastic Mr Fox

Well, because if a 'bums and tums' class claims it'll help you lose fat of your bum and tum then its telling the truth.

YeehaaMcgee

Ok. And...
I'm sorry but I don't see what your point is.

Fantastic Mr Fox

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Ok. And...
I'm sorry but I don't see what your point is.

That bums and tums classes are good.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So bums and tums classes are no good?

Yes. Good rule of thumb is that any dietary kind of thing aimed at women, will be complete and total, utter borlorx.

Its not true about the diets, I just think women attempt more diets than men and fail at them because they're unrealistic although the diet itself may be based on sound theory.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Ok. And...
I'm sorry but I don't see what your point is.

That bums and tums classes are good.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So bums and tums classes are no good?

Yes. Good rule of thumb is that any dietary kind of thing aimed at women, will be complete and total, utter borlorx.

Its not true about the diets, I just think women attempt more diets than men and fail at them because they're unrealistic although the diet itself may be based on sound theory.

Dr Atkins based a diet on "sound theory" Then was obese when he had a heart attack and died after living on it.

Fantastic Mr Fox

Well yeah, they're not all a bad idea though. The Atkins diet has probably worked well for thousands of people.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

Well yeah, they're not all a bad idea though. The Atkins diet has probably worked well for thousands of people.

The vast majority of pre-planned paid for diets are TRASH. It costs nothing to cut the shit from your diet,yourself.

YeehaaMcgee

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Ok. And...
I'm sorry but I don't see what your point is.

That bums and tums classes are good.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So bums and tums classes are no good?

Yes. Good rule of thumb is that any dietary kind of thing aimed at women, will be complete and total, utter borlorx.

Well, they're generally marketed as something that will give them a flat stomach and a pert backside, which is not true. It may tone the muscles, but they're still going to lose the fat.
And that's the issue, they're generally pushed as a quick, easy, zero or low effort miracle.

Fantastic Mr Fox

I don't disagree that the best way to lose weight is just to move more and eat less. That's how I lost weight and have been able to keep it off. But I think that's easier for guys as we tend to be able to get really into fitness and training.

For girls though (in general) I think they can't get as motivated by fitness goals, so having a social setting for fitness is a good motivator. I know that lots of the diets that are crap.

YeehaaMcgee

Nonsense. All the slim girls I know walk lots, and do lots. All the chubby ones, don't.

miss notax

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Nonsense. All the slim girls I know walk lots, and do lots. All the chubby ones, don't.

This

robertpb

I still wondering if anybody actually watched the Horizon programme that the 5/2 diet stems from.

It's nothing to do with loosing weight, you can loose weight but it was about lowering your aged related health problems, and it's not dieting it's fasting.

They have found using this method the body lowers the risk of cancer, and connections in the brain that deteriorate with age are reforming.

Here is an article from the person who was on Horizon, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/94 ... onger.html

fuzzdog

Hey Sandy.
I totally agree with you.
I have been doing the 5/2 diet after watching Horizon for five weeks.
I don't know how much I have lost but I am noticeably slimmer, I feel better and I wobble less when I run for the train.
I am probably not sticking rigidly to the 600 calories but try to be around that and have found it surprisingly easy. Im not huge, just want to get fit and shed maybe a stone. Put a packet of biscuits near me and I will polish off the lot in no time. However, I can do this diet because as you say, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Not in three months or six months, but tomorrow morning. Yes! just a few hours away when you can have eggs on toast, or whatever you fancy. Thing is, that although you go to bed dreaming of all the things you are going to binge on the next day, when it comes you just eat normally, but if you fancy a bag of pork scratchings or some chocolate then you can have it. No guilt.
Obviously if you didn't you would probably lose more weight faster, but it seems to work and as you go on it seems to get easier and I am finding myself even looking forward to my fasting days. I have some porridge for breakfast, then during the day a sugar free energy drink, water, diet coke, coffee, whatever as long as it is low cal. then in the evening I have a stir fry with an egg in it or veg in miso suip and I still have enough cals left for some yogurt or fruit ice lolly. So it's not so hard. And Im sticking to it. good luck with yours

YeehaaMcgee

Sugar free energy drink
Brilliant!

sandy771

sounds like a calorie free mars bar

anj132

I personally don't think I could do this, certainly not for any length of time.

For me to lose a lb of fat (3500 calores) I would on average need to eat around on ave' 1800 cal per day (maybe get away more if I do some/more exercise). That's 12,600 cal in a week. 2 days of fasting of 600 cal leaves me 11,400 for 5 days, so on average that's 2280 per day, an extra 480 on a 'normal' weight losing day. Not sure if those 2 days of effort is worth 4 chocolate hobnobs a day.

Surely it's still a numbers game?

But glad to hear it's working for people here.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Seriously, it's a complete life long change, not a quick fix.

I take that stance really, it's changing habits which is the difficult part.

t.m.h.n.e.t

fuzzdog wrote:

Hey Sandy.
I totally agree with you.
I have been doing the 5/2 diet after watching Horizon for five weeks.
I don't know how much I have lost but I am noticeably slimmer, I feel better and I wobble less when I run for the train.
I am probably not sticking rigidly to the 600 calories but try to be around that and have found it surprisingly easy. Im not huge, just want to get fit and shed maybe a stone. Put a packet of biscuits near me and I will polish off the lot in no time. However, I can do this diet because as you say, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Not in three months or six months, but tomorrow morning. Yes! just a few hours away when you can have eggs on toast, or whatever you fancy. Thing is, that although you go to bed dreaming of all the things you are going to binge on the next day, when it comes you just eat normally, but if you fancy a bag of pork scratchings or some chocolate then you can have it. No guilt.
Obviously if you didn't you would probably lose more weight faster, but it seems to work and as you go on it seems to get easier and I am finding myself even looking forward to my fasting days. I have some porridge for breakfast, then during the day a sugar free energy drink, water, diet coke, coffee, whatever as long as it is low cal. then in the evening I have a stir fry with an egg in it or veg in miso suip and I still have enough cals left for some yogurt or fruit ice lolly. So it's not so hard. And Im sticking to it. good luck with yours

Must be pretty damn hard if you need sugar free ENERGY drinks, caffeine and diet coke which is packed full of sweeteners to get through your day.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Sugar free energy drink
Brilliant!

fuzzdog

Yeah, yeah. The sort of response I would expect from a couple of cocky sceptics.
Well at the moment I am just sitting on the train having a cup of delicious miso soup having not felt particularly overwhelmed with hunger since breakfast. Unlike you two who are probably about to tuck into, or should I say indulge in your regular hit of protein. Who will it be tonight for you cocky pair? Maybe you could even get together, you seem terrible well suited. It's always nice to get something warm down your neck eh? I'm just glad that in my case its just the miso. Enjoy.

sandy771

anj132 wrote:

Surely it's still a numbers game?

I am no expert, I just know it works for me. However my understanding is that it is not just a numbers game, your body is a bit more complex than that. I believe, and happy to be shot down, that when you go on a sustained diet your body compensates for the constant reduced calorific intake and effectively becomes more efficient so weight loss actually becomes harder. If it was as simple as a numbers game those people who eat what they like when they like would put on weight - some just don't/can't put on weight.

That said I have never had much truck with those who say I don't eat much but I still put on weight - I am overweight because I have eaten and drank more than I have burnt off.

However, the diet was not about losing weight - it was more about lowering the incidence of certain proteins (ALG1 predominately IIRC) which are believed to be harmful to your health, or rather groups of people with low incidences of ALG1 live longer, have almost no incidences of cancer, diabetes, heart disease etc. Weight loss is a side effect.

I think what they were also saying is that we were not designed to have 3 square meals a day and that our body works better when we have feast and famine as we did thousands of years ago. The only bit they didn't address that I would have liked to have had some coverage was that thousands of years ago our average life span was about 30 years but that could be down to lots of different factors.

My weight loss also belies the straight forward figures. I have lost about 12LBs in 6 weeks. This has included numerous nights on the lash with the boys, about 4 three course meals out with the missus in local posh restaurants and a weeks holiday in Crete were I ate and drank to excess every day. I have certainly not eaten 12 * 3500 calories less than I normally would and given the holiday I would have expected to put quite a few pounds on.

Like everything though it will either work for you or it won't - but for some people it may be worth a try and may just do the job - but it very much suits my party life style and seems to be working. Time will tell.

For me though I find a odd days here and there hard diet easier than a weeks/months normal diet.

YeehaaMcgee

sandy771 wrote:

I believe, and happy to be shot down...

No, you're not. You call people "smart arses" and do something that's equivalent to sticking your finger in your ears and going "nah nah nah, I'm not listening".

sandy771

Er think you may be mistaking me for someone else

fuzzdog

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

sandy771 wrote:

I also know that given the choice of continuing to enjoy life as I do or cuting back and eating and drinking sensibly then I would choose the former.

Sorry to be blunt, but with that attitude, you will never, ever, get and stay thinner.
Making a temporary change will sove nothing, you need to get your head into the state where you're making permament changes to your lifestyle.

You come across as very negative. Who said anything about it being a temporary change. People here have said they find this a diet they can manage and stick to and it's working for them and me. Why do you feel the need to ridicule and demotivate. I suspect you didn't bother to read the article that was posted earlier explaining the theory behind the diet. I suggest you do so before you comment further.

I for one wont be listening to you.

t.m.h.n.e.t

fuzzdog wrote:

Yeah, yeah. The sort of response I would expect from a couple of cocky sceptics.
Well at the moment I am just sitting on the train having a cup of delicious miso soup having not felt particularly overwhelmed with hunger since breakfast. Unlike you two who are probably about to tuck into, or should I say indulge in your regular hit of protein. Who will it be tonight for you cocky pair? Maybe you could even get together, you seem terrible well suited. It's always nice to get something warm down your neck eh? I'm just glad that in my case its just the miso. Enjoy.

Of course I'm skeptical. You've taken info on a program that was not about a diet, made it one then admitted to pretty much living on stimulants.

It's not that great obviously.

Like many of the ignorant - you're looking for a quick, and ultimately unsustainable fix to a problem which will simply never work long term.

Every single person I've came across on sport forums who has attempted shake/starvation/low carb blah blah blah diets. Has returned 6months-1yr later heavier than they started. There is a reason for that.