The FastDay Forum

[carorees]

I think that the research on mitochondria that I recently posted about may be relevant...avoiding long periods of overnutrition is beneficial to mitochondrial function, so it could be that 2 fasting days a week is sufficient to keep the mitochondria in tip top health. Or we might find when more research has been done that one day is enough or it has to be at least three days or having 16 hours without food daily is enough! It might be that fasting cannot compensate for having carbs in the diet, or it might be that it can. At the moment we don't know exactly, so we are all just speculating. Tomtank, you may be right, or partially right or completely wrong...we just don't know. Ditto everyone else who has declared their opinion (including me of course).

Dominic - ADF is a lot more severe than 5:2.

It may be, true, though it depends on how much you are cutting down by on the 'fast' days. But my point was about health markers, not weight loss.

It's true that the research has not been done on 5:2 specifically, all we have for 'our' variant of intermittent fasting is our forum's evidence for (a) weight - and waist - loss (compelling IMO, but not scientific), and (b) other benefits (anecdotal certainly). But it would be logical for some of the benefits 'proven' for ADF by research to feed through to 5:2 (forgive the pun). Whether that proves to be the case, or how far, we don't yet know, as Caroline says.

Hi Tomtank,

Can I just inquire if you are asking the same questions on Dr M's official website and if you are, what answers are you getting? Thank you,

Ballerina x

Hi Ballerina - Yes. Of course I will be asking him the same things! I'm just compiling my message now. I'll let you know what happens!

[Moogie]

I would expect tumbleweeds or deletion over there, but you never know, Dr M may respond

I'll try to write to him privately, not on his forum for all to see. He wouldn't like that!!

I'd be blown out of the water at the first hurdle!

[Moogie]

Sounds like a plan Would be interested to hear how you get on, though of course you won't be able to post his response publicly without his permission

Re: Peeps with low TDEEs - how do you cope?

Postby tomtank » 20 Jun 2013, 16:38
"I'll try to write to him privately, not on his forum for all to see. He wouldn't like that!!

I'd be blown out of the water at the first hurdle!"

Can I ask why you feel he would not like you addressing issues from his book on his forum, is that not what forums are for, and also, why do you feel that you would be "blown out of the water at the first hurdle"? I would have thought that the official forum would have been the ideal place to raise any concerns anyone has. It certainly would have been my first port of call, after all, why not go straight to the source of your information rather than second guess his answers on another site?

Ballerina x

What I don't understand though, Moogie, is that he's a doctor, and he should have known that an invitation to "eat what you like" could lead to some people having a field day!

Yesterday, I noticed a comment from someone on an old thread, saying that they had started eating unhealthy foods, even though they weren't before, because MM said it would be OK.

If he has introduced a TDEE section on his website, doesn't that make his book worthless?

Will he printing an updated version now, I wonder?! Has he lost any credibility, because this huge sea-change is really an admission that all is not as it seems?!

I can't talk for doctors in the UK but in Australia doctors study nutrition for 2-4 hours in their whole medical course. So a medical doctor has very little understanding of nutrition unless they have done a post grad course in nutrition or dietetics or some research etc

I think Dr MM introducing TDEE on his website shows his commitment to ongoing education and as he finds a gap in the system he is working on filling in the blanks. I would be more concerned about him if he just put his head in the sand and pretended that everything was ok when clearly things needed to improve.

I don't think his book is worthless b/c it has no mention of TDEE. Science is the best wrong answer we have and that is why we put out second editions as we learn more. In a few years time we might discover that we only need to do 16:8 twice a week and that is enough or we may discover that we need to do ADF to get the full medical benefits of fasting or maybe there is some new fasting format that no one has yet discovered. Experimenting with 5:2 may lead us to those answers.

To me he has not lost any credibility as he is working to improve his system. 2000 years ago most people walked to get around, a couple of hundred years ago most people used a horse to get around, about 100 years ago cars (horseless carriages) made their debut but they were no where near as reliable or safe as they are today. What will the future bring maybe flying cars? I suppose that makes them a mini plane so maybe the future will bring about a hover car? It was the constant search for something better has led us to a reliable and relatively safe form of transport. We can't say that because the first cars were hard to start and not very safe (no seat belts, no air bags etc) that the designers lose credibility b/c they didn't get it 100% right from the first design. If you don't like my car analogy you can swap it for a plane analogy if you want... Lots of discoveries took many attempts to get it right and given the nature of the human body and how so many of us respond differently to medicine, fasting, carbs, fats etc methinks that there is still a long way to go before we get to the best answer.

If Dr MM publishes a second edition with new information then I shall buy the book to support his continued work as his work so far has already helped me in so many ways. One thing in particular is that when I went through college we were taught all the benefits of fasting but it was thought to be something that you had to do for a long time in a controlled environment to ensure you didn't roll over and die in the middle of the treatment. Dr MM has shown me that it is possible to fast for shorter periods of time so people can do it without having to attend a clinic and get some medical benefits from the practice, I can not thank him enough for this.

It is quite a brave move to present information that goes against the grain and I respect Dr Mosley for having the courage to come forward and present his initial findings. I also look forward to his ongoing research results and I wish him all the best in his work.

My two pence worth is that Dr M is not an overweight person by nature, he was slightly overweight and had probably got that way over years, not through secret chocolate binges, or eating until he felt sick. Therefore his version of 'eat as much as you like' is probably very different to the average very overweight person. The book was fairly hastily written and now it's become obvious many overweight people have no sense of hunger/satiety and therefore if told to eat what they like will just eat until they can't eat anymore! I don't think he lied or intended to mislead he just didn't understand the mentality.

Having been overweight most of my adult life I've dealt slowly with my food 'issues' but even now struggle to stop eating when I'm full, or to not eat something when I'm not that hungry. Therefore only calorie counting works properly for me because it makes me realise how much I NEED as opposed to want. TDEE is a useful indicator. I'm 'lucky' because as well as being tall, I also exercise hard 4-5 times a week so can afford to eat 2000+ calories on feed days, but this is ridiculously easy to do and I do feel many people fool themselves when they say they only eat X amount and never lose weight. Weighing and measuring everything is often a sobering affair.

I love the idea that it's 'eat as much as you like' on feed days, but realistically not many of us will sustain weight loss that way. We didn't get fat by following our bodies signals!

Hi boudicca - I agree with you. I don't think he lied or intended to mislead, but, as a doctor, he surely must have realised that there are certain people who will take it literally, when he said that no food is off limits on non-fast days.

But, Tomtank, that is the whole point of 5.2 - NOTHING is off limits. Not bread, cake, chocolate, biscuits, toffee, fudge, lollipos ,beer, fondants, croissants, pizza,wine, fish and chips, steak, potatoes, oysters, snails, garlic butter, strawberries and cream, broccoli, beans, rice, crème brulee, deep fried mars bars if that's what takes your fancy...I think you get my gist. If fasting allows us to eat something we like and enjoy why not? From what I have read on the forum almost everyone is fairly food knowledegable, and certainly if time is spent reading some of the posts will become even more food savvy. People who eat too much will probably not lose the weight they want to and being sensible, and sometimes desperate, will in time tweak and adjust their eating so they start to lose their unwanted weight. The 5.2's brilliantly simple concept is to make possible the occasional indulgence in food that we know is not "diet friendly" but we love it and long for it, and knowing we can have it some of the time keeps us fasting and being "good" on our fast days. We know we can enjoy fish and chips (make mine with lashings of malt vinegar!) when we go to the seaside on a day out, followed by candyfloss or a toffee apple, and the next day we can fast. We are also sensible enough to know that we can't have a day out and a stick of rock at the seaside every day! We know if we're gluttons we'll be fat, but we also know that food and drink is one the great pleasures of life, and as such should be relished and enjoyed. 5.2 makes that possible.

But, Tomtank, that is the whole point of 5.2 - NOTHING is off limits. Not bread, cake, chocolate, biscuits, toffee, fudge, lollipos ,beer, fondants, croissants, pizza,wine, fish and chips, steak, potatoes, oysters, snails, garlic butter, strawberries and cream, broccoli, beans, rice, crème brulee, deep fried mars bars if that's what takes your fancy...I think you get my gist. If fasting allows us to eat something we like and enjoy why not? From what I have read on the forum almost everyone is fairly food knowledegable, and certainly if time is spent reading some of the posts will become even more food savvy. People who eat too much will probably not lose the weight they want to and being sensible, and sometimes desperate, will in time tweak and adjust their eating so they start to lose their unwanted weight. The 5.2's brilliantly simple concept is to make possible the occasional indulgence in food that we know is not "diet friendly" but we love it and long for it, and knowing we can have it some of the time keeps us fasting and being "good" on our fast days. We know we can enjoy fish and chips (make mine with lashings of malt vinegar!) when we go to the seaside on a day out, followed by candyfloss or a toffee apple, and the next day we can fast. We are also sensible enough to know that we can't have a day out and a stick of rock at the seaside every day! We know if we're gluttons we'll be fat, but we also know that food and drink is one the great pleasures of life, and as such should be relished and enjoyed. 5.2 makes that possible.

Hi Dhana - yes, of course there are those who will eat all the foods you mentioned and still lose weight, but there are also many who won't lose weight if they do.

That is the reason, as I have said before, that I think MM has introduced a TDEE section, so that people can organise how many calories they eat on non-fast days, even though it is going against the principle of the 5:2 WOE.

If you interviewed a hundred people in the street, I am certain that most would agree that if you give an overweight person the opportunity to eat what they liked, they would do just that.

That's OK, up to a point, but if the reason they put weight on in the first place was because they consumed a lot cakes, sugar etc., chances are that they will do as the book says, and carry on eating in that way, on non-fast days.