The Fast Diet

[ChrisJordan]

I could be sold on this. The weight I've lost in going to a rack system seams to have to my waist. I turned up at SE Gasfest on Saturday looking more stomach than man. This could be a goer.

[holnrew]

Seems to be good enough fo Zap.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...tall-fast-diet

Didn't know Michael Mosely was involved, I saw him do a Horizon on diet and exercise and there were people fasting for the whole week, made them look dead young.

[Myranda_Rose]

So... by "eat what you like" I take it you still eat sensibly?

And as such I'm guessing that 2000-2500 calories a day except for the two starvation days... so when you hit your target weight what are you to do?

Seems like an easy way to yo yo weight...

[octatonic]

I know of this diet- it was fashionable in bodybuilding circles about 2 years ago under the name of 'intermittent fasting'.
The Fast Diet or the 5:2 diet- or any of the other variants of it work on the same principle.

I don't want to kill anyone's enthusiasm for it but here is my take on it.

Like any fad diet it works for the time you stay on it.
If you think this is something you can sustain forever then go for it- providing you get adequate micronutrients (vitamins, minerals etc) the reduction in macronutrients is probably good for people who are overweight/obese.
Also providing you don't over-eat on the 'eat what you want' days.
Some people use this as an excuse to go on a binge- two days of fasting cannot undo 5 days of a woeful diet.
You can't really 'eat anything you want'- you still need to eat sensibly- but you can have wine and sweets, a few extra carbs etc.
If you just ate cream-cakes all day then you'd be in trouble.

The 'science' behind it is pretty flimsy- but that doesn't matter.
Any macronutrient reduction will cause weight loss.

The real problem with these diets is people go on them, have some initial success but find them ultimately unsustainable.
As soon as they come off them they absolutely will gain all of the weight back and more.
That is how it works.
Some people manage to stay on them in the longer term but this diet isn't inherently any more superior than any of the others.
For instance, the Caveman/Paleo diet has a different set of rules and a different bit of 'science' behind it.
It also works for as long as you stay on it and it also causes rebound as soon as you come off.

Also most of the weight loss in the first month will be water weight, not fat.
This is also simply biology- when you reduce carbs (as you do on a fast day) your body dumps all the water from cells.

IMHO this diet really is for a body builder who is cutting weight/fat before a comp.

Edit:

One other thing- what will work better at reducing glycogen stores and resetting insulin levels is exercise, particularly high intensity interval training.
Heavy dieting without intense exercise is a bit like optimising fuel consumption on a car without an engine.
Any exercise is better than none.

[travisthedog]

The science is more sound than any of the other diets

To maintain your weight (and this isn't just about weight) fast for one day a week. IMO that's entirely sustainable.

The bodybuilding fasting was more to do with reduction of water prior to competitions iirc

And yes Myranda - it's not a 5 day binge but if I want a curry and a few beers - I will!

[octatonic]

The science is more sound than any of the other diets

That is what everyone else who had dieted has said about their diet in the past too.

I've seen just as many fail at IM style diets as I've seen fail at others.
There is no real difference.

It sounds like you are quite early into this diet.
I'm going to leave this point for now for a few months- let's talk about it again in June and let's see how you are getting on.
There is zero malice in this statement- I just can't think of a more diplomatic way to say it, but the way you feel about a diet in the first few months is utterly different to how you feel about it after 6 months.

To maintain your weight (and this isn't just about weight) fast for one day a week. IMO that's entirely sustainable.

Great- of it works for you in the long term then more power to you.
Certainly we all have to find what works for ourselves- which is essentially my point, that no one diet is inherently better.
It is all about what works for the person, their lifestyle, personality, failings, family etc.

The bodybuilding fasting was more to do with reduction of water prior to competitions iirc

Not really.
Body building cutting has several phases- you are describing the last phase, which is not what I am talking about.
When bodybuilders bulk they gain fat and muscle.
They then cut, which requires fat loss whilst preserving the muscle.
Intermittent fasting seems to be good at preserving muscle, which is why bodybuilders use it.

The last phase of depleting water is more complex- and has a lot more to it- it is beyond the scope of this discussion but I can go into it if people are interested.
It is pretty unpleasant.

Back on topic- I'm not trying to discourage anyone, it is just I've seen this happen many, many times before under various different guises.
Every time people think they have found 'the answer' when the truth of it is there isn't an answer beyond consuming less calories than you expend.

IMHO a far better approach (for me) though is the one outlined by Tom Venuto.
There isn't any dieting as such- you eat as many calories as you need and exercise a whole hell of a lot.

Body type matters too- an endomorphic body type will struggle to get body fat down under 15% and an ectomorph will struggle to gain mass. Working with the body type you have actually helps things greatly- again, IMHO.

Also, this isn't for you so much as anyone else who might be considering it- the current medical advice is:

As it stands medical opinion at the moment is that the benefits of fasting are unproven and until there are more human studies it's better to eat at around 2000 calories a day.

If you really want to fast then you should do it in a proper clinic or under medical supervision, because there are many people, such as pregnant women or diabetics on medication, for whom it could be dangerous.

The British Dietetic Association says that rapid weight loss occurs when fasting or severely restricting dietary intake, but this weight loss is mainly water, glycogen (the body's carbohydrate stores) and muscle, rather than body fat.

"Routine fasting is practiced successfully by many cultures for religious purposes and may have some health benefits, says BDA spokesperson Rick Miller, "However, the clinical evidence for fasting as a treatment in healthcare is not clear.

"Fasting could potentially be unsafe in some individuals without medical supervision or lead to the development of poor eating patterns. Dietitians would always recommend a well-planned, healthy diet in the first instance for health and longevity."

Dietitian Sian Porter says: "A lot of people have a five days and two days eating pattern.

"Make sure you eat foods that make you feel full and keep your fluid intake up."

I'll state again, people need to realise that most of the weight in the first month will be water loss.
Fat loss is slow and steady, regardless of the water manipulation.

Also, you are only dieting around 3000 calories per week using IF.
If you overeat the other 5 days by 500 calories a day then you completely negate the point of it.

[travisthedog]

On god I wish I'd kept my mouth shut now

Look, fat bloke wants to lose gut - this works for me - and no doubt countless others - cycling 150 miles a week doesn't seem to have had much effect so the combination of the two works or at least it does for me

So what if its another fad diet - all diets of this kind are fad diets - we all know that the only real way to do this is to eat 2500 calories a day and take regular exercise just like our good government tells us

Well for me and no doubt millions of others that doesn't work.

Come back to me in June if you like - I may not answer as I will be Moribund in a specially constructed enormo-bed and channel 5 will be filming a documentary on how the fire brigade have had to dismantle the side of my house to get me out to have my bed sores seen to!

[bochetagrave]

My weight fluctuates periodically - I gain weight when I'm stressed an when the missis is pregnant

Jeez, mate - stop gettin her pregnant - that'd help!

[octatonic]

I'm not trying to give you a hard time- I'm giving you actual reality of what is going on in your body.
Isn't it much better to know what is actually happening, rather than believing the BS of the fad diet script?

However, you can't sell it to everyone as a scientifically sound approach- it isn't.
It is still as controversial as Paleo, Atkins etc.
It is still unproven and it fits the usual model for a fad diet- it ticks every one of the boxes for it in fact.

You lost 10 lbs in 2 weeks.
That simply isn't fat- it is almost all water.
Water weight loss is utterly meaningless to health (actually counter productive) and your actual fat loss, which is the bit you should actually care about, is only going to be at the most one pound given how much you are dieting.

10lbs of fat is 35,000 calories.
You dieted at most 6000 calories. (1500 calories per day (ish) for two days per week for 2 weeks).
The numbers are irrefutable.

Why?
Because you are only dieting at most 3000 calories a week (assuming you are eating 2500 on the other 5 days).
That is 1lb of fat.
The only way you can lose 10lbs of fat in two weeks is to stop eating entirely.

I'm not telling you this to piss you off, or to win an argument- I'm trying to give you a reality check because very soon the weight loss will stall or stop and *most people* get despondent about this, think they are doing something wrong and then the binging starts up again.
I've seen this cycle time and time again.

Now, actually a 1lb fat loss is fine, and a good target for weight loss.
1-2lbs a week is good.

I know I'm probably not winning you over here though so perhaps I best leave it.
Good luck.

[Viz]

I just completed a course of the norovirus diet and lost about 4 stone