The FastDay Forum

So I am not sure that I will be able to/interested in doing this for the rest of my life. That the positive side effects are permanent. What happens when I hit the setpoint (if it exists), the 10% loss of body weight when all the sophisticated fat defense mechanisms gang up on me?

I know I'm just one data point, and I also agree with what you said about these forums obviously showing a bias towards those who've stuck with it. That said, I should've hit that 10% thing at 96.3 kg after losing 10.7kg. I'm currently at 92.6kg which means I've lost 13.5% of my initial body mass and no sign of anything yet...

This horrified me, and not just the spelling!

Weight loss surgery is the ultimate way to loose weight

Really? The only way for me to lose weight and keep it off is to submit my body to serious, dangerous surgery that will restrict what I can eat until the end of my life? It won't teach me about what I can eat, about portion control, and it won't give me a sense of control and achievement. Indeed, if I really want to, I can just liquidize all the bad foods I was eating before and still take in the same number of calories.

These people call themselves doctors?

He didn't say "the only way". Severe obesity has its dangers as well. For most people though, bariatric surgery will teach you about portion size, but in a nasty way - you get seriously unpleasant sideeffects from eating too much or certain food stuffs (almost like Antabus for alcoholics). I agree on the control and achievement, but usually these are people at high risk because of their weight, who have tried "control and achievement" for a long time without succeeding. Btw, these programs come with behavioural therapy, exercise instruction, nutritional information, etc.
No, liquidizing will not do the trick, because due to the rearrangement of your bowels they wouldn't take up all the nutrients (not talking gastric banding here). That even goes so far that you may need nutritional supplements for the rest of your (now longer) life.

Yes, these people call themselves doctors, and they are actually saving lives. Most of them do not claim this is an easy solution without any risk, but it is effective. It's a harsh measure for a very serious problem, when other measures don't work. It does help selected people who are at severe risk and who are not succeeding in any other way despite really trying very hard. Most diets do have an disappointing 2-5 year follow-up sustained weight loss rate. Bariatric surgery does better in those statistics.

It would be great if 5:2 worked in the long run, I'm really very much with you on that one (after all - I'm here!), but that still remains to be confirmed - even Mosley says so. And it might not work for just everyone.

(PS as for my spelling mistakes - non-native speaker, please bear over with me )

What happens when I hit the setpoint (if it exists), the 10% loss of body weight when all the sophisticated fat defense mechanisms gang up on me?

I know I'm just one data point, and I also agree with what you said about these forums obviously showing a bias towards those who've stuck with it. That said, I should've hit that 10% thing at 96.3 kg after losing 10.7kg. I'm currently at 92.6kg which means I've lost 13.5% of my initial body mass and no sign of anything yet...

Good to hear - you and others who have been "at it" for a longer period are those whose experiences I am most interested in reading. All diets succeed - but most not sustainably so after 5-10 years, except in a paltry few. (Then again, maybe you are paltry )

In my opinion, it's a poor review of the diet. For instance, he ignores the animal studies cited my Dr. Mosley that show that IF mice lose more fat than mice fed the same number of calories but allowed to eat every day. That alone indicates that there is more going on than simple caloric restriction.

He claims the "proof" is "personal testimonials," again ignoring actual research. There's no excuse for that. He ignores other health benefits of fasting, and there's no excuse for that either. This man is a health professional taking a public stance, and he has a responsibility to do his homework before running his mouth.

The only thing I can really agree with him about is the potential danger of the "Eat all you want" promise. I've been snared by those words too many times myself. Why do many of us stall on low-carb diets, for example? We're told we can eat all we want of the low-carb foods, but some of us simply find that we want an awful lot of them to reach satiety, so we stall. The riddle of dieting is finding a way of eating that alters how much we want to eat so the diet isn't a program of continuous deprivation, because programs of continuous deprivation tend to fail.

The 5:2 diet is a deprivation program, but not continuous deprivation. To work in the long term it must not only create a caloric deficit but also alter our spontaneous eating behavior during the non-fasting days. Varady's research suggests that it does exactly this. As she tells Dr. Mosley, her hypothesis was that the ADF people would eat 175% of normal on the feed days, but the hypothesis was refuted. They ate 90-100%. That's a very important detail, which Dr. Simpson ignores. Does it need to be confirmed by further research? Of course, but in the meantime it's simply irresponsible to say "there is no solid evidence," as he does in his reply to Demi.

[carorees]

So I am not sure that I will be able to/interested in doing this for the rest of my life. That the positive side effects are permanent. What happens when I hit the setpoint (if it exists), the 10% loss of body weight when all the sophisticated fat defense mechanisms gang up on me?

I know I'm just one data point, and I also agree with what you said about these forums obviously showing a bias towards those who've stuck with it. That said, I should've hit that 10% thing at 96.3 kg after losing 10.7kg. I'm currently at 92.6kg which means I've lost 13.5% of my initial body mass and no sign of anything yet...

And I've lost 16% of my bodyweight and still decreasing!!!

In my opinion, it's a poor review of the diet. For instance, he ignores the animal studies cited my Dr. Mosley that show that IF mice lose more fat than mice fed the same number of calories but allowed to eat every day. That alone indicates that there is more going on than simple caloric restriction.

Mice and rats =/= humans. They are a reasonable first step in any scientific investigation but nothing more than an indicator of what may happen to a human being. You need well designed replicated trials in humans to be certain of the results.

That is odd, as humans we'll accept a cure for disease tested on Mice and Rats, but not the fact a way of eating is effective or not?

On reflection, what have we got to loose? You eat less a couple of days a week, after a while you may feel better and weigh less, the forum, support and advice, it's free, so we have nothing to loose, except those "woobly Bums"

I DON'T WANT TO BE OBESE ANYMORE! Don't see many fat rats!

That is odd, as humans we'll accept a cure for disease tested on Mice and Rats, but not the fact a way of eating is effective or not?

No, we don't, there are extensive clincal trials on humans who volunteer/are paid to do the study before drugs and cures can be applied more widely to the general human population.

No, we don't, there are extensive clincal trials on humans who volunteer/are paid to do the study before drugs and cures can be applied more widely to the general human population.

Yes, exactly. Animal studies are an important first step, but that's all they are!

It should also be noted that no one's saying that the diet is not good for weight loss. Please don't read skepticism about the "live longer" science as skepticism of the fact that reducing your calorie intake in a sustainable way will get you thin. I think that, at least for me, 5:2 has been a great means of getting rid of the ol' spare tyre, which is good for you in itself. If the "live longer" science pans out that will just be gravy!

I speak from experience.
Atkins WORKED.
Cambridge WORKED.
Weightwatchers WORKED.
Atkins ultimately FAILED, as it was too complicated from the very start.
Cambridge ultimately FAILED, as it did not retrain my greedy self.
Weightwatchers ultimately FAILED, as it was a commitment too far.
And the real biggy------
The NHS 'Balanced Diet' has been an utter FAILURE for me and the majority of the overweight nation who can't get to grips with all the detail, and who shop in ordinary supermarkets, and don't make a great effort to find out about our food, as we just fill our busy bodies with stuff that's available..That's life as we live it today, unfortunately, and I believe that............
5:2 is WORKING for me and all these people who are eating the quite normal, though perhaps not exactly balanced or healthy diet, that we subject ourselves to, because it allows us to have a little failure now and again, but then we just fast the next day instead. EASY, don't you think?
Keep at it folks.......5:2 is a winner, and its the best Freebie I've ever come across.

Mice and rats =/= humans. They are a reasonable first step in any scientific investigation but nothing more than an indicator of what may happen to a human being. You need well designed replicated trials in humans to be certain of the results.

That result was replicated in humans by Dr. Varady as well.

But let's be clear: It's one thing to insist on replicated trials to be certain of results; it's another to recognize animal and human studies as evidence of results. Evidence is not proof, but it's not chopped liver either. Anyone who claims that the merits of 5:2 have been scientifically proven is overstating the facts. But Dr. Simpson errs in the opposite direction, by ignoring the evidence altogether.

In real life, real people often can't afford to wait for scientific certainty. We need to make judgments based on incomplete information and evidence that may well be overturned. Anyone who is offering public advice as a medical professional should understand this. To suggest, as Dr. Simpson does, that 5:2 is based on testimonials and nothing more is to distort the facts irresponsibly.

You may have noted that I'm here and have been doing 5:2 for five months. There are plenty of good reasons to do it even should the live longer science not all pan out.

You may have noted that I'm here and have been doing 5:2 for five months. There are plenty of good reasons to do it even should the live longer science not all pan out.

Of course, but Dr. Simpson's article isn't primarily about longevity; in fact he doesn't mention it all, except in the comments. Moreover, I'd bet that most people who do 5:2 don't do it primarily for its longevity effects; they have more immediate health issues, and for those there are, as you say, good reasons go for it.

What bothers me is that he ignores all the evidence--doesn't even make an effort to summarize it. He doesn't even say anything specific to this diet and the book that describes it, saying instead "Almost any diet book that is read will have a group of scientific articles proving its point. They have become more sophisticated over the last 20 years as they will include research that has “insulin” and insulin-growth-factor. I shall save you the trouble and summarize the research for the following types of diets." That's just a generic dismissal, not an informed critique. If he wants to claim the science is bad, he should identify specific claims and show that they're unsupported, not brush them off with a wave.

"Like all diets – every single one: it works by you eating less. Just regulates it a little bit better. This gives you the time, and a regulation."

What's that? "Regulates it a little bit better?" The article would have been more informative if he had expanded on that point.

Why should I trust the word of a doctor who is unable to differentiate between 'loose' and 'lose'?
_______________________________________________________________________________

I rejuvenate on Mondays and Thursdays

Thought folks might like to see this video of his:



So, for his weight loss surgery patients, you have to measure your food on scales 2 days out of 5 to learn portion control and establish how you feel 2-hours after eating....

' "The laddie doth protest too much, methinks' in the other vid!

By the way, how much does Gastric Bypass Surgery Cost in the States?