The FastDay Forum

Moogie, what a voice of reason you are. Yeah, I guess in the end we all have to do what works best for us.... I personally feel I can do this. So here goes!

Well that's great teatime and we all wish you good luck, as motivation is half the battle. But it's only that - half the battle. One of the great things about 5:2, as Dr Moseley has promoted it, is it's flexibility - and that's why it's been so successful with so many people - both on this forum and elsewhere. In other words, we can 'do what works best for us' ... Please don't think I am being condescending, but the other half of the battle is yet to come for you. That's keeping going, in what is going to be sometimes a difficult path (that's for all of us, 5:2, 16:8, 4:3, ADF or whatever) you only need to look around the forum to see how hard this can sometimes be.

And when things do get tough, it's the flexibility that comes to the fore, unlike with most other 'diets' or 'programmes' - this is why you will see WoE or WoL, not 'diet' or 'program. Dr M was the first to 'tweak' - and what a tweak it was! And there have been loads of us following in his footsteps. You might find eventually that you are one of them, so please don't discount it at this early stage. There may not be the scientific research that Dr V has, but the results on this forum alone surely count in an anecdotal way - and much better in terms of the day-to-day experience of people actually living it, every day, week, month ...

And sustainability is another thing to bear in mind. Most of us can see keeping on with 5:2 or one of the other variations for keeps, simply because of that adaptability. So it's the long game ... and it might just be that it's easier with a less rigorous and more flexible regime.

Again, please don't think I am being preachy or advocating one way over another. I can really appreciate you wanting to get going if you have not found anything before that has worked out for you. So good luck with your journey, and remember that the folk on this forum are always alongside for advice, support or just for a laugh.

I think I'd be peed off too if someone swooped in and wrote a book using my work (for the past 10 years). She missed the boat, next time don't be so trusting when a nice doctor and his film crew asks about your research. She missed out on a big pay day because everyone's really happy doing 5:2.
Dr M has said no real research has been done on 5:2, only on himself and of course now all of us. 5:2 can't be bad for you if Dr V said it's safe to fast more often. and why fix it if it's not broken? You may lose weight faster on one than the other, it's not a race. People are doing great on 5:2, our stats speak for themselves. I think it's more sustainable than ADF. I don't think I could do ADF (it's too much to ask of most people) but I do think I may add a 3rd or 1/2 fastday to my week (sometimes), as I find by non-fastday 3 I start to stray a bit (But 'it's' not having my weekends with my family). I think a lot of us have tweaked the fasting thing to suit. At last we are all starting to listen to our bodies and what THEY need, not what we want.
I will not be buying Dr V's book nor will I be buying Dr M's, I thank them both (and all of you, of course) for giving me the info I need to live a healthier life. It sure beats the way I was eating before.

[carorees]

I'm afraid you can't conclude that ADF is safe because Dr V said so...her published studies are only 8-12 weeks long.

See here for a comparison of intermittent fasting studies: the-5-2-lab-f10/topic669.html

There are now so many common sense replies on this thread, thanks for putting what I feel and have experienced into a nutshell.
We are well aware of the good will, integrity and clarity of Dr M's book. I personally do not believe he has trespassed on anyone's scientific patch. He has sounded honest and clear in his interviews and writing, giving credit where it is due. He clearly states his own experience, which many have now replicated. I seem to remember he started out by being asked by BBC Horizon to look into ageing and it took him down this other closely related path?
This forum's members' results are evidence that feeling better, losing weight, gaining self esteem and carrying on this WOE for ages, are happening! (regardless of variations, blood analyses, weighing scales etc)
It will be interesting to hear of any developments but we are happy on 5:2.for life.

So sad that some scientists are so petty, ungracious, territorial, and all the other descriptions of Dr. Varady on this thread. Of course the same approach is not appropriate for everyone. Of course Dr. Mosely has been honest and has given credit to his sources. I don't think we need more studies to come to the conclusion that non-extreme fasting is not dangerous, and that being obese is dangerous. Let's just embrace what works and isn't harmful. Sure, the studies are important, but we're talking about people's lives - we don't have time to wait for study results.

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

What a great shame that there is a spat over this. The punch line is that there are such great benefits over fasting of all types, who gives fig? Providing you find something that works for you its all good people!

The issue that no-one has raised so far is the question mark over detrimental effects of fasting, which we have yet to elucidate. [bold] ADF or 4:3 are more likely to have negative side effects than 5:2 just because they involve more fasting. [/bold] But we don't know how much fasting is the optimal balance between positive and negative effects. If 5:2 is pretty much equivalent to 4:3 in weightloss, as our tracker data suggest, then I'd choose 5:2 over 4:3.

I'm afraid you can't conclude that ADF is safe because Dr V said so...her published studies are only 8-12 weeks long.
See here for a comparison of intermittent fasting studies: the-5-2-lab-f10/topic669.html

You made conclusions that 5:2 is safter than 4:3 based on no studies whatsoever. That is one of the points Dr Varady is trying to make. The studies for ADF don't apply to 5:2. The tracker here is no study at all. It is voluntary reporting with no requirements for compliance, accuracy, frequency of reporting, etc. I'm afraid that you also can't conclude that 5:2 is better than 4:3 based on unscientific tracker data. Sorry.

I would love to know how many of Krista Varady's "lab rats" carried on with ADF until they reached a healthy weight then maintained it for a year or two. I don't know if her book will cover this aspect of weight loss but it is the most important one I think...

Dr Varady did studies on people, not just rats.

"Lab rats" meant people...

"Lab rats" meant people...

LOL, I didn't get that and thought you meant it literally because she has done studies on both. But, the actual lab rat studies are not the best since rats are not people and their compliance to the plan is very forced. I don't think the people are force fed or rather force fasted in most studies.

There was that starvation study long, long ago that had very forced compliance and some of the men went mad. Literally.

[carorees]

The issue that no-one has raised so far is the question mark over detrimental effects of fasting, which we have yet to elucidate. [bold] ADF or 4:3 are more likely to have negative side effects than 5:2 just because they involve more fasting. [/bold] But we don't know how much fasting is the optimal balance between positive and negative effects. If 5:2 is pretty much equivalent to 4:3 in weightloss, as our tracker data suggest, then I'd choose 5:2 over 4:3.

I'm afraid you can't conclude that ADF is safe because Dr V said so...her published studies are only 8-12 weeks long.
See here for a comparison of intermittent fasting studies: the-5-2-lab-f10/topic669.html

You made conclusions that 5:2 is safter than 4:3 based on no studies whatsoever. That is one of the points Dr Varady is trying to make. The studies for ADF don't apply to 5:2. The tracker here is no study at all. It is voluntary reporting with no requirements for compliance, accuracy, frequency of reporting, etc. I'm afraid that you also can't conclude that 5:2 is better than 4:3 based on unscientific tracker data. Sorry.

Actually, I did not conclude that 5:2 is safer, I was extremely careful to state that more fasting is more likely to have detrimental side effects than less fasting. That is not saying 5:2 is safe. Nor did I say that 5:2 is better than 4:3 based on the progress tracker. I simply reported that the presumption that 4:3 will produce dramatically better results is not borne out by our observations. I never claimed any scientific validity for the progress tracker. I am very careful not to make unfounded claims...which is why I am saying that we can't conclude that any fasting regimen is beneficial or safe long term because there are no long term studies of IF in humans.

But we do know that being obese is detrimental long term.

Popularizers are often "unpopular" with some of their peers. Some fellow academics didn't like the way that Isaac Asimov published a new "popular" science book almost every year. Many fellow astronomers weren't fond of Carl Sagan, either, professing to believe that "real" scientists didn't do TV programs or books aimed at ordinary people. Jealousy all around.

Having read Dr. Mosley's book and watched the documentary, I never thought he was trying to take credit for discovering intermittent fasting. He was just telling us about it and about how he's using it in his own life.

I actually agree with almost all of this. I don't think that he was necessarily trying to take the credit. But, he has been given a lot of it unearned. People in this post have called him a god and act as if he is beyond reproach. He wasn't even the first to "tweak" as Michelle Harvie was studying 5:2 before Mosely as well. It isn't just unpopular with the scientists...they are saying that his conclusions are unfounded and premature. That is not the same as just saying he is making big profits on the backs of others. What they are saying is that his claims are false and misleading. He and Spencer are journalists not scientists and some of their conclusions are neither scientific, nor proven true.

The issue that no-one has raised so far is the question mark over detrimental effects of fasting, which we have yet to elucidate. [bold] ADF or 4:3 are more likely to have negative side effects than 5:2 just because they involve more fasting. [/bold] But we don't know how much fasting is the optimal balance between positive and negative effects. If 5:2 is pretty much equivalent to 4:3 in weightloss, as our tracker data suggest, then I'd choose 5:2 over 4:3.

I'm afraid you can't conclude that ADF is safe because Dr V said so...her published studies are only 8-12 weeks long.
See here for a comparison of intermittent fasting studies: the-5-2-lab-f10/topic669.html

You made conclusions that 5:2 is safter than 4:3 based on no studies whatsoever. That is one of the points Dr Varady is trying to make. The studies for ADF don't apply to 5:2. The tracker here is no study at all. It is voluntary reporting with no requirements for compliance, accuracy, frequency of reporting, etc. I'm afraid that you also can't conclude that 5:2 is better than 4:3 based on unscientific tracker data. Sorry.

Actually, I did not conclude that 5:2 is safer, I was extremely careful to state that more fasting is more likely to have detrimental side effects than less fasting. That is not saying 5:2 is safe. Nor did I say that 5:2 is better than 4:3 based on the progress tracker. I simply reported that the presumption that 4:3 will produce dramatically better results is not borne out by our observations. I never claimed any scientific validity for the progress tracker. I am very careful not to make unfounded claims...which is why I am saying that we can't conclude that any fasting regimen is beneficial or safe long term because there are no long term studies of IF in humans.

But we do know that being obese is detrimental long term.

Ok. Fair enough. It was carefully stated and implied if not concluded. There are many, many posts on this site where the tracker data has been used as evidence that 5:2 is as fast, faster or better than 4:3. Multiple posts but not necessarily all of them yours.

I haven't ever read any study about the detrimental efffects of fasting if there are any. Yet, you said "ADF or 4:3 are more likely to have negative side effects than 5:2 just because they involve more fasting." By that same logic wouldn't 4:3 also be more likely to have more positive side effects. (Like more weight loss, better blood work results, better long term health indicators.)

Ok, I take it back. I don't know if Dr V knows if any of it's safe. I haven't read anything bad about it at all. If any of my fellow fasters have heard of anyone becoming or have become ill themselves because of this WOE, I would love to know.
Dee