http://goo.gl/1Pfd3 This link put up on twitter by Paul Lewis (journalist) to Daily Mail piece saying oo er missus it's not safe, another fad diet.
Log in to view your messages, post comments, update your blog or tracker.
33 posts
Page 1 of 3
The article starts off on a negative note, but goes on to say
As well as helping people lose weight, they say fasting can improve your health by lowering cholesterol and blood pressure and balancing insulin levels - making developing diabetes less likely. But Ms Keogh warned that people will only gain these benefits if they eat healthy on their non-fasting days.
There are also many positive comments below the article from members of the public.
As well as helping people lose weight, they say fasting can improve your health by lowering cholesterol and blood pressure and balancing insulin levels - making developing diabetes less likely. But Ms Keogh warned that people will only gain these benefits if they eat healthy on their non-fasting days.
There are also many positive comments below the article from members of the public.
Shocking. The grammar is shocking!!!
'But Ms Keogh warned that people will only gain these benefits if they eat healthy HEALTHILY!!!! on their non-fasting days.
'She told the MailOnline people should not think of their non-fasting days as licence to eat unhealthy.' UNHEALTHILY!!!!!
ADVERB PEOPLE!!!!! Shocking from an edited major newspaper.
'But Ms Keogh warned that people will only gain these benefits if they eat healthy HEALTHILY!!!! on their non-fasting days.
'She told the MailOnline people should not think of their non-fasting days as licence to eat unhealthy.' UNHEALTHILY!!!!!
ADVERB PEOPLE!!!!! Shocking from an edited major newspaper.
Can't be bothered to read a negative article (only on 2nd fast) but although in its infancy the science says otherwise.
It IS the Daily Fail, what did you expect, redhead?
redhead wrote: Shocking. The grammar is shocking!!!
'But Ms Keogh warned that people will only gain these benefits if they eat healthy HEALTHILY!!!! on their non-fasting days.
'She told the MailOnline people should not think of their non-fasting days as licence to eat unhealthy.' UNHEALTHILY!!!!!
ADVERB PEOPLE!!!!! Shocking from an edited major newspaper.
Hear hear!!!!
id pay no attention... I dislike the daily mail horrible paper grr:(
Ha ha Daily Fail!! I don't read it and having checked out a couple of links to articles in it (this one and one on Philip Scofield doing 5:2) I won't be buying it anytime soon. The comments at the bottom tell you everything you need to know about the readership's demographic. Frankly this sort of poor journalism just spurs me on to '5:2 for life'!
He he we also call it Daily Fail with my friends!!!
The commenters know the score.
And a lovely picture of MM for my ahem collection. Thank you very much.
And a lovely picture of MM for my ahem collection. Thank you very much.
..... sticks fingers in ears..... "blah blah blah, I'm not listening, not listening"
Oh yum! Fish and chips!
It's a fast day today, sorry I just couldn't help myself
It's a fast day today, sorry I just couldn't help myself
You can't really blame the Daily Mail for this, they're only reporting what paid experts are saying. Much of it, I assume is rehashed from the publication of the Irish Nutrition and Dietetic Institute. Experts tend to think the rest of us are as thick as pig swill and need to be warned, lectured and hectored about healthy eating etc. They obviously assume that us non-experts will starve two days a week and eat donner kebabs and pizzas the rest of the time.
Nutritionists telling us if we don't eat their way we can't possibly be healthy. Their way leads to obesity.
They also say, rather cleverly, if you eat a nutrient deficient diet, you wont get enough nutrients.
I don't know Hugh, I have had the same questions for 7 1/2 months.
I ask: Is this really good reporting, for me or for significant numbers of others? Can I honestly say I'm backing the Daily Mail to be writing rubbish a year from now?
They also say, rather cleverly, if you eat a nutrient deficient diet, you wont get enough nutrients.
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is another fan of The Fast Diet but admits he also has concerns on its sustainability.
He said in The Guardian: 'I've lost eight pounds already, and I find the whole thing rather exhilarating. I feel I might just be part of a health revolution.
'But is it really sustainable, for me or for significant numbers of others? Can I honestly say I'm backing myself to be fasting regularly a year from now?'
I don't know Hugh, I have had the same questions for 7 1/2 months.
I ask: Is this really good reporting, for me or for significant numbers of others? Can I honestly say I'm backing the Daily Mail to be writing rubbish a year from now?
They blast the diet for not having enough human studies, but they clearly haven't looked into the human studies that are out there already (like the ones showing that people don't overeat that much after a fast). They also warn against pregnant women, type I diabetics, etc., trying this diet--just like all the books ever written on the subject. Have they done any research at all?
And re: nutrients on a fast day: with all the veggies I eat, I imagine I'm getting most of the vitamins I need. I'm probably getting as many as I do on feast days.
And re: nutrients on a fast day: with all the veggies I eat, I imagine I'm getting most of the vitamins I need. I'm probably getting as many as I do on feast days.
33 posts
Page 1 of 3
Similar Topics |
---|
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 219 guests