The FastDay Forum

This article by Kate Langbroek was in the Fairfax Sunday papers yesterday.

She doesn't go into much detail about 5:2, but what she does say is positive. She's been following it for three weeks and lost five kilos (!).

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/kate-la ... 2p9pv.html

Results like that will give 5:2 a bad name when others can't duplicate it. Matter of fact, I wonder how she did it? She must have a huge TDEE!

Simcoeluv, I don't think her result is that unusual (I lost 3 kg in my first week and 1.1 kg in the second) but that's not the main point of the article anyway. I think the way she writes about 5:2 really captures what this is all about. Kate has never been a skinny Minnie and as she says in the article, she's not 'a dieting person'. The weight loss is mentioned almost as an afterthought. Kate is also on a regular radio show here and has apparently been singing the praises of 5:2 on air as well. I think it's wonderful publicity for 5:2 which in my personal experience has a pretty good 'image' here in Australia.

Simcoeluv, I don't think her result is that unusual (I lost 3 kg in my first week and 1.1 kg in the second)

I am always interested when people lose weight on 5:2 rapidly. Your loss was 9 pounds in 2 weeks. To lose a pound of fat a person must cut around 3500 calories from their diet. So to lose 9 pounds of fat, you must have removed 31,500 cal. from your diet in two weeks, or about 15,750 per week. The 'average' women needs about 2000 cal. per day to not lose weight (TDEE of 2000). So if the average woman fasted for 7 days, she would cut 14,000 from her diet (4 pounds), so could not lose 9 pounds in 2 weeks even if she ate nothing for the 2 week period.

I have to assume a goodly portion of your initial weight loss was water weight and that you either added some weight fairly soon thereafter as you rehydrated your body, or had a plateau (or period of slow losses) that allowed your fat loss to replace your water loss over time. I note that your average weight loss over the total time of your 5:2ing is about 2 pounds a week (twice the average - great), so the weight loss seems to have slowed down a bit from your initial 4.5 lb. per week average.

The reason for my comment has to do with expectations. If a person expects to lose that amount of weight in a hurry, and does not, or does and then the high rate of loss does not continue (or, heaven forbid, they gain weight), they often decree that 5:2 does not work and give up (and tell all of their friends). I would rather a person start 5:2 with reasonable expectations and stick with it, because I believe 5:2 can help a very large number of people lose weight if it is given a chance.

Cute article, other than it drives me a little bonkers when folks confuse pseudo-science for science.

As to the weight, you never know. For her weight, even lightly active would give a TDEE of 2300, not 2000. Maybe her fat cells were already sitting full of water and fasting triggered them to release the water and accept they weren't needed? Maybe she retains less water in general now with her new diet or tends to weight herself after fasting days?

I do agree that 5 kg in 3 weeks can send the wrong message, but if that was her experience, that's what she has to say. At least she mentioned it in a downplayed manner. Honestly, anyone who sees that and rushes out looking to lose 5kg every 3 weeks is not mentally where they need to be for ANY diet to work that I don't think any number would matter. At least maybe it gets them to start researching a HEALTHY option instead of some crazy "eat only fruits that start with P" fad diets that PROMISES unrealistic results.

Simcoeluv, I was referring to the initial bigger loss that a lot of people experience when they first start a diet. To me Kate's loss would seem to be pretty normal in that regard. As far as calories consumed are concerned, I can't of course speak for Kate but I have logged mine onto MyFitnessPal since I started 5:2. I'm not counting calories as such but wanted to get an idea of how many I was consuming and I find logging my food keeps me more mindful of what I eat. I don't know anything about weight loss maths but in my first week I had three days of around 1500 cal, one 2600 cal day and three fast days (because I started on a Wednesday and wanted to get into Mon/Thu fasting from the second week) 400-500 cal. In the second week two fast days 400-500, one day around 1700, two around 2000 and two around 3000. You're right that my weight loss dropped after the first two weeks, the third week I lost only 200 g but week 4 was
1,4 kg, then 800g, 600g, 900g and after that 1kg etc. I know I have been very lucky losing more than average but I also want to point out that I have not been starving myself. I am eating 'normally', real food, with occasional meals out, celebrations with cake, wine etc. and have been steadily losing for 16 weeks, some weeks more, some less. It seems to me that Kate in her article was promoting just that, that 5:2 is a sustainable lifestyle that works. Obviously there are people who will fixate on the weight loss but you can't stop anyone from trying 5:2, whatever their reasons.

I'm happy that word gets around and more people will find out about 5:2; it has truly changed my life!

Sometimes rapid weight loss occurs for reasons other than dieting. I was once in an extremely stressful situation and dropped 12 lbs in 3 days. I'm not saying I lost 12 lbs of fat but some of it MUST have been fat. I believe that stress can 'eat' your fat quite rapidly but it is not a healthy way to do it, you don't feel well, you don't look well but boy do you get thin rapidly but not in a good way. I think that under normal conditions the 3500cals to 1 lb of fat is probably quite accurate but under abnormal conditions I think this ratio flies out the window. I also believe that when people have a big, fast weight loss it is because your body is under stress from a suddenly reduced food intake but it doesn't happen to everyone. I'd been gradually reducing my food intake prior to 5:2 and my weight loss was very slow so I put this down to lack of stress.

Ballerina x

Part of what seems to be missing here is the fact that when you're not eating, you are also not adding weight in the form of solids to the top of your digestive tract. Daily elimnation - poo - accounts for a fair portion of that dramatic initial weight loss. Potentially 5 pounds or more.

By ignoring the initial days' weight loss and averaging the remainder you'll see what your actual weight loss rate is.


***

As a related add-on to this the same logic applies to the daily fluctions of weight that so many complain about. It can take 3 days or more for food to make its way through the digestive tract. The loss of weight after a fast day pushes the number one way, the gain after feast daya pushes it the other. Confusion results.


In any article, by reporting only the initial dramatic reduction, it's easy to see how some might view 5:2 as "a miracle", leading to a potential for bad press.

Well done Tara.

Can't wait to see more of your success.

Xx