5:2 Fasting Diet

Status
Not open for further replies.


I'm going to swap my usual 3/4 cups of tea/coffee for black coffee and green tea or at least herbal tea, Twinnings and the like. Going to drink more water as well see if that helps.

Titus said:
That is likely a huge average calorie deficit. Going to want plenty of protein on the 'normal days' too
Click to expand...

Would the calorie deficit be better if I consumed closer to 2000 calories on my non fast days? I've stated using a calorie counter and it seems to be closer to that than 1500
 
Last edited:
LatchDiamond said:
I'm going to swap my usual 3/4 cups of tea/coffee for black coffee and green tea or at least herbal tea, Twinnings and the like. Going to drink more water as well see if that helps.



Would the calorie deficit be better if I consumed closer to 2000 calories on my non fast days? I've stated using a calorie counter and it seems to be closer to that than 1500
Click to expand...

Apologies, only just noticed your first reply. I'm guessing you know a bit about that now?

It's pretty individual and without knowing anything about you, that would be decent. But adjust if you're losing too quickly.
 
Titus said:
Apologies, only just noticed your first reply. I'm guessing you know a bit about that now?

It's pretty individual and without knowing anything about you, that would be decent. But adjust if you're losing too quickly.
Click to expand...

Yeah I had a quick look about it, I'll start off as I am and adjust as I go on, thanks.
 
Erm, bump!

Have people had any weight loss success with this diet? Is the diet intended for a finite time and if so is the weight loss sustainable or does it pile straight back on?
My missus has realised she's pushing a hike in dress size so wants to drop weight. She's not very good with exercise (some yoga) so needs a diet that will make a difference without much activity (I know, I know, I've tried to tell her...). She's quite little and doesn't want to be losing too much weight in my opinion. Is this diet a reasonable option for her? Can you really do pretty much what you want on the non fast days, within reason, and still see results?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Erm, bump!

Have people had any weight loss success with this diet? Is the diet intended for a finite time and if so is the weight loss sustainable or does it pile straight back on?
My missus has realised she's pushing a hike in dress size so wants to drop weight. She's not very good with exercise (some yoga) so needs a diet that will make a difference without much activity (I know, I know, I've tried to tell her...). She's quite little and doesn't want to be losing too much weight in my opinion. Is this diet a reasonable option for her? Can you really do pretty much what you want on the non fast days, within reason, and still see results?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Most people who use the 5:2 diet seem to do so as a lifestyle choice, the alleged benefit being longevity of life.

Regards weight loss, without meaning to labour the point over and over again, any calorie controlled diet will yield results. Fancy diets with catchy names become popular but the secret is calorie deficit. What needs to happen is she needs to gain an understanding of how many calories she burns in a day, how many calories are in food and consume less calories than she burns in a given day. Keep that up over an extended period and you lose weight.

All exercise does is increase the number of calories you expend. So yes anyone can lose weight without exercise. But if people want to lose weight because of vanity and health reasons I'd seriously question why they're so averse to exercise given that it will improve appearance and health.
 
Charmless Man said:
Most people who use the 5:2 diet seem to do so as a lifestyle choice, the alleged benefit being longevity of life.

Regards weight loss, without meaning to labour the point over and over again, any calorie controlled diet will yield results. Fancy diets with catchy names become popular but the secret is calorie deficit. What needs to happen is she needs to gain an understanding of how many calories she burns in a day, how many calories are in food and consume less calories than she burns in a given day. Keep that up over an extended period and you lose weight.

All exercise does is increase the number of calories you expend. So yes anyone can lose weight without exercise. But if people want to lose weight because of vanity and health reasons I'd seriously question why they're so averse to exercise given that it will improve appearance and health.
Click to expand...
Canny, thanks for the reply.

As an aside and mainly out of intrigue, based on the calorie deficit principle why is it that much larger people tend to have more rapid weight loss and can lose simply by reverting to a 'normal recommended' calorie intake? Is their body naturally burning more calories in just carrying the extra weight about?
 
Howard the Duck said:
Erm, bump!

Have people had any weight loss success with this diet? Is the diet intended for a finite time and if so is the weight loss sustainable or does it pile straight back on?
My missus has realised she's pushing a hike in dress size so wants to drop weight. She's not very good with exercise (some yoga) so needs a diet that will make a difference without much activity (I know, I know, I've tried to tell her...). She's quite little and doesn't want to be losing too much weight in my opinion. Is this diet a reasonable option for her? Can you really do pretty much what you want on the non fast days, within reason, and still see results?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...


No. Unless you have an idea of how many calories you're eating, it would be very easy, over the course of 5 days, to eat and drink the calories you'd "saved" on those 2 days without it seeming unreasonable. Especially as a fast day will generate a certain feeling of "I've earnt this" the following day and you'll be inclined to eat more.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Canny, thanks for the reply.

As an aside and mainly out of intrigue, based on the calorie deficit principle why is it that much larger people tend to have more rapid weight loss and can lose simply by reverting to a 'normal recommended' calorie intake? Is their body naturally burning more calories in just carrying the extra weight about?
Click to expand...

Normal recommended for who? If an obese bloke reverts to the recommended 2,500 kcal/day for a 'normal' bloke he is indeed in a massive calorie deficit relative to his total daily energy expenditure (TDEE).

Yes, larger people have higher TDEEs and one contributor to that is the increased energy required to move more weight.
 
TartanMackem said:
No. Unless you have an idea of how many calories you're eating, it would be very easy, over the course of 5 days, to eat and drink the calories you'd "saved" on those 2 days without it seeming unreasonable. Especially as a fast day will generate a certain feeling of "I've earnt this" the following day and you'll be inclined to eat more.
Click to expand...
I tend to do this personally to be honest. I'm in reasonably good shape as I'm very active in terms of sport and exercise but I'm massively a binge eater. I can easily and often do go 36 hours without eating a morsel (I don't really get hungry and haven't had regulated meal times since I was about 12) but when I do eat I absolutely feast and go to excess - not out of need but, I guess, out of pure gluttony. I guess/hope it's all evening out though it's probably not very healthy.

Charmless Man said:
Normal recommended for who? If an obese bloke reverts to the recommended 2,500 kcal/day for a 'normal' bloke he is indeed in a massive calorie deficit relative to his total daily energy expenditure (TDEE).

Yes, larger people have higher TDEEs and one contributor to that is the increased energy required to move more weight.
Click to expand...

By 'normal recommended' I did mean the 2,500 kcal/day. To be honest I didn't realise it was variable based on weight etc. If I had, I guess it would have answered my own question! :)
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
By 'normal recommended' I did mean the 2,500 kcal/day. To be honest I didn't realise it was variable based on weight etc. If I had, I guess it would have answered my own question! :)
Click to expand...

Varies loads based on weight, body composition, age, gender, daily activity levels (so exercise plus all the walking about you do during the day), how much sleep you get and just overall genetics. Things like my fitness pal can only give you a vague guess at what your TDEE is, you really need to monitor yourself on a regular basis.

And yup, that would have answered your question. The weight is going to drop off anyone who slashes their intake down to 2500kcal when their TDEE is say 3500kcal :lol:
 
At the risk of sounding incredibly ignorant how does weight loss work? If calorie deficit is the basis I mean. My assumption would be that a deficit of calories (being a unit of energy) means that the body needs to get the energy from elsewhere, rather than what's being put in the mouth, and I guess it uses the excess weight stores by somehow converting/burning it. Is that anywhere near? Based on that I assume excessive weight loss is dangerous as once those excess weight and fat stores/reserves are exhausted you're in negative energy effectively? Or does the body try and draw the energy from elsewhere?
 
Howard the Duck said:
At the risk of sounding incredibly ignorant how does weight loss work? If calorie deficit is the basis I mean. My assumption would be that a deficit of calories (being a unit of energy) means that the body needs to get the energy from elsewhere, rather than what's being put in the mouth, and I guess it uses the excess weight stores by somehow converting/burning it. Is that anywhere near? Based on that I assume excessive weight loss is dangerous as once those excess weight and fat stores/reserves are exhausted you're in negative energy effectively? Or does the body try and draw the energy from elsewhere?
Click to expand...

It catabolises fat stored in adipose tissue in order to release energy, yes. So broadly speaking you're correct.

And yes, that's why being anorexic is harmful to your health. The body needs fat to function.
 
Charmless Man said:
It catabolises fat stored in adipose tissue in order to release energy, yes. So broadly speaking you're correct.

And yes, that's why being anorexic is harmful to your health. The body needs fat to function.
Click to expand...


And I read that bizarrely, when the body goes into starvation mode, instead of depleting stored reserves of fat, it depletes muscle tissue!! What's with all that then? Is it leaving the fat "for desperation measures"?
 
Scimmy said:
And I read that bizarrely, when the body goes into starvation mode, instead of depleting stored reserves of fat, it depletes muscle tissue!! What's with all that then? Is it leaving the fat "for desperation measures"?
Click to expand...

I guess because muscle needs more calories to maintain, so the body in starvation mode depletes the muscle in order to save calories for the more basic body functions that keep it going?
 
Been doing 5:2 for 5 weeks now and lost 12lbs which i reckon isn't bad cos I don't exercise. Am going to add exercise slowly as the weather improves - have to be careful as I have epilepsy and syncope which both cause seizures if I overdo anything.

I do my 2 restricted days consecutively (mon/tues) - as advised. Do you lads do this or separate them through the week?
  • 2 soft boiled / poached eggs for brekkie
  • 1 piece of fruit for lunch
  • 1 piece of lean chicken / fish (mackerel is good) plus salad for tea
  • loads of water through day with bits of lemon or lime in
  • 3/4 coffees per day - easy on the milk
I do get hungry on the days but much prefer getting them 'out of the way' then look forward to eating normally rest of the week.

On other 5 days - very few cakes, crisps and chocolate mind but do have the odd beer (can't drink much anyway as it affects meds).

Would say this works well for me and happy with losing about 2lb pw but expect without exercise this will drop soon
 
Finlayson said:
Been doing 5:2 for 5 weeks now and lost 12lbs which i reckon isn't bad cos I don't exercise. Am going to add exercise slowly as the weather improves - have to be careful as I have epilepsy and syncope which both cause seizures if I overdo anything.

I do my 2 restricted days consecutively (mon/tues) - as advised. Do you lads do this or separate them through the week?
  • ...

Would say this works well for me and happy with losing about 2lb pw but expect without exercise this will drop soon
Click to expand...

I always thought that it was 2 NON consecutive fasting days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top