The FastDay Forum

I've long been a fan of Dr Rick Kausman, an Australia doctor who champions healthy eating, not dieting, and positive body image stuff. He wrote the book 'If not dieting, then what?'. I have respected his opinions on such matters for many years.

He recently posted this on his FB page:

"Just did an interview for 'Medical Observer' (it's a weekly medical magazine that is sent to all General Practitioners, and some allied Health Professionals around Australia), on the 'new' 5:2 diet.

"This 'new' diet which apparently involves fasting for 2 days per week, is in reality just another version of the hundreds of weight loss diets that are out there, which the research shows firstly don't work (because they can't be sustained). Secondly lead to weight regain sooner or later. Thirdly, for many people, lead to a higher weight than they were before they started the diet. And fourthly, weight loss diets of any kind are the commonest pathway to developing an eating disorder.

"The journalist was great, and we spoke about alternatives to dieting. Amongst other things we discussed a study that was done a while ago that showed if mice ate less than they normally would (semi-starved), they would live longer. She asked me if I thought that this study might be applicable to humans - I said NO for many reasons, including that while I couldn't be absolutely sure, I was pretty confident mice didn't feel guilty when they ate cheese or chocolate!"

I really feel he's missed the point of 5:2 without having looked into it in depth. It IS sustainable, for starters ... and the fact he says "apparently" makes me feel he hasn't really looked into it properly before passing judgement. I guess he sees a million wacky diets a year, and has just lumped this in with them.

He also talks a lot in his book about becoming aware of non-hungry eating, and removing 'guilt' labels from foods ... both things which have improved for me, anyway, on 5:2.

While I do agree with his general assessment of diets, I really don't think they apply to the 5:2 WOE. I hope his upcoming article doesn't mean that our Aussie GPs will be giving more negative feedback to patients who are trying 5:2, too.

Truth be told, I was and probably still am a little skeptical about the much touted health effects of 5:2, I can happily report I am losing weight so far. With regards to sustainability, this is getting to be the longest diet I have maintained so far as there are no actual food restrictions most days. And even fast days are not that bad provided one is smart and aware in food choices.

In essence, what we are practising is a form of caloric reduction, whereby we average our caloric reduction over a 7 day period but actually practise the restriction on two specific days. This is in contrast to restrictions on a daily basis, which I found eventually lead to guilty binges or boredom.

The essence of my concern is the potential metabolic effects on our metabolism long term. The old adage if never skipping breakfast because it is bad for you keeps ringing in my head most fast days.

These concerns plus medical opinion as provided above is one of the reasons I am silent about my current weight loss efforts and do not discuss what I am doing.

As I am losing still, with no obvious metabolic issues 7 weeks on, I am still interested enough to keep persevering with this WOE.

[Betsysgr8]

I agree with your assessment AussieNisi, it doesn't appear that he has researched 5:2 at all. I wonder if he was asked about 5:2 in an 'out of the blue' manner, as though he may not have known the question was coming and just dismissed it out of hand?

I honestly believe that 5:2 or any variation of skipping meals to maintain weight is the correct path. And that is what makes it sustainable in the long run. When I observe my slender friends, that is EXACTLY what they do, they don't even realize it. They skip a meal or have just a nibble and call it 'lunch'.

It is disappointing that so many respected people in the medical world, etc., feel compelled to publicly disseminate their knee jerk reactions. It's one thing to always have an instant negative reaction to alot of medical news, particularly if it goes against the grain of what we already believe--alot of us are like this. It's another to go on about it publicly without doing your research first.

I'm old enough to remember when the Atkins diet came out. Around the same time, the American Medical Association endorsed the low fat diet. Dr. Atkins was called a quack, just trying to sell a dangerous diet - by doctors following their association's recommendation of low fat.

Now, 40 years or so later, we have bags of candy advertising 'no fat' as if the candy was healthy, an obesity epidemic, and almost every doctor now conceding it is ok to eat some meat, and even fat, occasionally. Clinical studies have proven Atkins safe and effective.

So I think listening to an ignorant doctor pontificate on whether 5:2 is safe or effective is a waste of time.

Thanks all ... I do generally trust Dr Kausman, and I've even had some helpful email chats with him over the years, he's a great guy. But I think he's making a knee-jerk judgment here.

I guess his views make me feel a bit anxious about doing 5:2, maybe he's right and I'm wrong? But my personal Dr is very much in favour of it, so I'll go with him ... and he knows me and my health challenges more than Dr Kausman.

These concerns plus medical opinion as provided above is one of the reasons I am silent about my current weight loss efforts and do not discuss what I am doing.

As I am losing still, with no obvious metabolic issues 7 weeks on, I am still interested enough to keep persevering with this WOE.

Yeah, I don't talk about my 5:2 regime too much, although I have told a few friends, and they're doing it now too. I started about the same time as you, and find it quite easy to maintain.

I'm hoping the other health benefits are there, but am still waiting to see the results of more studies ... I gather there are some studies which have shown things like reduced cancer rates in people who do IF.

[carorees]

It's so depressing when so-called experts don't bother to do any research before writing these things. If he had been able to back up his assertions with evidence then all well and good, but he has clearly not investigated the diet at all.

As I am losing still, with no obvious metabolic issues 7 weeks on, I am still interested enough to keep persevering with this WOE.

I'd just like to point out that I'm still losing weight 7 MONTHS on, so I would say it is sustainable!

I do agree, however, that prolonging the fasting period may affect metabolism or thyroid function. To avoid this I think it is important to eat well on the feed days and if weight loss slows not to calorie restrict on all feed days but instead to calorie restrict only on one or two more days (either by adding a fast, or a half-fast or doing 16:8) but keep at least two days for eating well.

However, there is one school of thought that a slower metabolism might be the reason the calorie restriction results in longer life in the experimental animals...perhaps we all just need to get used to the idea that we should eat less!

But you have to remember the fact of the matter is it is a relatively new diet(At least in this form) so time will tell whehter it is effective long term. The medical community is always skeptical of new diets.

I agree it has merit and those that really research it will see the benefits, but I have learned to just do my thing and prove through action(losing weight).

Yeah, I guess I don't feel I can talk about it too publicly until I have some serious results to show for it ... then I can say "See, I've lost 20 kg (or whatever), and this is how it's been for me ..."

I'm frankly rather concerned that his article in the newsletter to GPs is going to really skew things, and discourage people. He is definitely seen as an expert in this area in Australia, and he's generally really good, and gives good sensible advice.

Sigh.

Hi AussieNisi,

It seems there is a difference of professional opinion. There are doctors that are recommending 5:2. So you need to get a second opinion - doctors are only human.

Dr Kausman has a book about eating and he has an empire to protect, there's nothing in it for him to endorse 5:2 - unless he should find 5:2 is a normal way to eat. Then he can jump on the bandwagon.

Since it is true that all diets fail (that's the message I keep getting), it is obvious the new kid on the block must fail. I guess this website will help people see results

As more people take up 5:2 and succeed, more people will pay attention. It is early days yet.

Thanks Peter ... yeah, I hadn't really considered that Dr K does have his own 'empire' to protect. Hopefully as results accumulate for 5:2, he will eventually look at it again in closer detail.

Thankfully my 'main doctor' totally supports me and my husband in doing 5:2, which is awesome. He's a sports physician, as well as a GP, so he knows his stuff.

I'm kind of waiting until I hit my weight loss goal (and hopefully some blood pressure and cholesterol goals too), before 'going public' with what I'm doing (on my blog / Facebook etc). Then I can be at least one more example of how well it works!