Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1
3 4 ... 46 47
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Halb

23,106 posts

66 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
Timsta said:
I retract my statement. Yes, it's a nutritionist I was thinking of. I apologise. Please do view the Horizon episode though, as it was backed up by a fair bit of testing.
Indeed. The show is not the first either, there have been docs going back years with this sort of testing.
Many of the threads and regular posters here follow some sort of IF.

BuzzLightyear

Original Poster:

1,426 posts

65 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
It's very interesting to see the conflicting views on this - I am interested to see if there is substance to the claims made on behalf of the pro-ADF argument. I can see that a fasting diet may adversely affect someone with other health issues but, as was pointed out before, for most adults, the proposed reduction on calorific intake for two days a week should not pose any kind of a threat, being akin to what most of the population had to manage with during the course of the World Wars etc etc.

I should say that I have not tried other diets because I am not really concerned about my weight, I am OK with it but try to keep reasonably fit as I have a largely sedentary job, am approaching 50 years of age and am pretty active anyway. To help with this, I go to the gym twice a week, have lots of children to run around after and have a wife who is always happy to give me a couple of jobs to do around the house if it ever looks like I might be getting too comfy on the sofa.

The attraction of this regimen is that there is some evidence to show that the health benefits go some long way beyond just losing weight and a reduction in %fat, cholestorol and other factors contributing to ill health may be expected and that IMHO, this is a sustainable, long-term improvement to your well-being, not a means of dropping weight quickly only to put it back on when you can't keep to a rigid, unsustainable and therefore short-term diet.

It would therefore be of use if those of you who have already started it to be kind enough to post up how long they have been doing it for, what the results have been so far and for how long they have managed to sustain it / intend to continue.



ETA I would add that I can see myself indefinitely being able to limit my calorific intake a couple of days a week, knowing that on the other 5 days, I can eat what I like. For me, I would have much more difficulty in maintaining a diet all day, every day if it meant that some of the foods which I enjoy were no longer allowed. I already try to maintain a reasonably balanced diet but I do have a good appetite and a sweet tooth...

Edited by BuzzLightyear on Monday 1st October 14:44

Halb

23,106 posts

66 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
The link to Alzheimer's was most interesting.
Also the impact processed sugar has on our overall health is also interesting.

rudecherub

1,946 posts

49 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
hman said:
rudecherub said:
hman said:
Timsta said:
hman said:
Theres no need for me to waste my time watching Horizon etc. Mrs Hman is a BDA and HPC registered Dietician.

HTH.
I'm a dietician too, and I fully endorse ADF.

(There is no legal requirements to call yourself a dietician, so saying your other half is one holds no water.)
Your profile says your a web developer - I'm not really seeing your point here.

Please advise your current HPC and BDA status - or are you simply delusional?
"Alternate day fasting is another way of reducing the overall amount of calories eaten to help with weight loss," according to Emer Delaney from the British Dietetic Association. From the Boots article

Krista Varady, PhD
"Alternate day fasting is another way of reducing the overall amount of calories eaten to help with weight loss," is about as compelling as "eating better everyday is another way of reducing the overall amount of calories eaten to help with weight loss"

The two quotations are correct - but which is the current advice for practising Dietitians?, and which is the more sustainable long term?

That would be the latter not the former.

My wifes qualifications are that she is a fully state registered dietitian with a diploma in allergies leading two teams of dietitians over two hospitals within the NHS trust. Shes also the MD of a company specialising in dietitic advice - with specialist experience in paediatric care. She has literally decades of first hand experience in dietetics - every day - all day ( sometimes weekends too!)

However what she is not doing currently is promoting the latest fad of fasting diets, nor did she promote atkins(look at what happened to him), or any of the other fads which surface just in time for the run up to Christmas.

I asked her opinion on these diets- the answer is, they are not reccomended by us, they are a means to get some initial weight loss but we do not see them as sustainable.

I really hope that helps you - I'm not sure it will, but thats all I can offer you.
This isn't a fad diet. It's work that is grounded in a great deal of research.

And contrary to your assertion there is no reason why having at least two days a week when you eat app 600 calories is difficult or not sustainable.

Your wife is a Dietician.

In short she isn't a Professor at a leading Metropolitan University that has had numerous works published, and is actively studying this field.

"Recent findings from our lab demonstrate that ADF is an effective means of facilitating weight loss and improving several indicators of cardiovascular disease risk in overweight and obese subjects. Our findings also show that changes in adipose tissue physiology during weight loss may mediate these improvements in vascular health."

This isn't just about weight loss, but life pro-longing advantages, that had previously only been seen in cases where animals and people have eaten significantly lower calories than normal.


Edited by rudecherub on Monday 1st October 14:46

hman

5,651 posts

77 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
rudecherub said:
This isn't a fad diet. It's work that is grounded in a great deal of research.

And contrary to your assertion there is no reason why having at least two days a week when you eat app 600 calories is difficult or not sustainable.

Your wife is a Dietician.

In short she isn't a Professor at a leading Metropolitan University that has had numerous works published, and is actively studying this field.

"Recent findings from our lab demonstrate that ADF is an effective means of facilitating weight loss and improving several indicators of cardiovascular disease risk in overweight and obese subjects. Our findings also show that changes in adipose tissue physiology during weight loss may mediate these improvements in vascular health."

This isn't just about weight loss, but life pro-longing advantages, that had previously only been seen in cases where animals and people have eaten significantly lower calories than normal.


Edited by rudecherub on Monday 1st October 14:46
Oh dear, a Fanboy.rolleyes

Well sorry to bring the realistation to you but indeed you, nor I are a DietiTic (correct spelling with a "t" not a "c" so I'm instructed) expert.

However what you are doing is regurgitating stuff you absorbed via the media whereas I can ask my wife- an actual practising Dietetic expert first hand and then type her responses onto here directly type - (which makes me her bh - kinky...)


My original point was that this latest fad is not currently reccomended by healthcare proffessionals - something which you have consistently failed to grasp and indeed have tried to twist and discredit with your cutting and pasting from "da internetz".

Yes this fasting diet is a fad, its a fad becasue its not being adopted by state registered dietitians and so wont be the benchmark advice given in this country- therefore it will always be a fad as long as its not adopted. - all diets that arent adopted are fads.judge

I'm not sure I can make it any more obvious to you and I dont think I'm able to contribute much more to this so as Mr Bannatyne would say "ammmmm out".byebye
Advertisement

rudecherub

1,946 posts

49 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
hman said:
rudecherub said:
This isn't a fad diet. It's work that is grounded in a great deal of research.

And contrary to your assertion there is no reason why having at least two days a week when you eat app 600 calories is difficult or not sustainable.

Your wife is a Dietician.

In short she isn't a Professor at a leading Metropolitan University that has had numerous works published, and is actively studying this field.

"Recent findings from our lab demonstrate that ADF is an effective means of facilitating weight loss and improving several indicators of cardiovascular disease risk in overweight and obese subjects. Our findings also show that changes in adipose tissue physiology during weight loss may mediate these improvements in vascular health."

This isn't just about weight loss, but life pro-longing advantages, that had previously only been seen in cases where animals and people have eaten significantly lower calories than normal.


Edited by rudecherub on Monday 1st October 14:46
Oh dear, a Fanboy.rolleyes

Well sorry to bring the realistation to you but indeed you, nor I are a DietiTic (correct spelling with a "t" not a "c" so I'm instructed) expert.

However what you are doing is regurgitating stuff you absorbed via the media whereas I can ask my wife- an actual practising Dietetic expert first hand and then type her responses onto here directly type - (which makes me her bh - kinky...)


My original point was that this latest fad is not currently reccomended by healthcare proffessionals - something which you have consistently failed to grasp and indeed have tried to twist and discredit with your cutting and pasting from "da internetz".

Yes this fasting diet is a fad, its a fad becasue its not being adopted by state registered dietitians and so wont be the benchmark advice given in this country- therefore it will always be a fad as long as its not adopted. - all diets that arent adopted are fads.judge

I'm not sure I can make it any more obvious to you and I dont think I'm able to contribute much more to this so as Mr Bannatyne would say "ammmmm out".byebye
Given your condescending attitude I am increasing feeling sorry for your wife.

What precisely about my cut and paste failed? I simply cut & paste the academic qualifications of the expert that appeared on Horizon, which happened to also summarise her findings.

As for my typo, I couldn't give a toss.

As for my sources, this coming from a poster who can states definitively something can't be right without even source checking, proudly stating they don't need to read the a linked article or see the documentary.

Clearly The University of Chicago, and the BBC erred because they didn't first run this research past your Mrs.

Halb

23,106 posts

66 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
And it's not just Chicago and the Beeb in on the know, it's been smallish spreading outwards for a while now.
http://www.brinkzone.com/general-health/calorie-re...

rudecherub

1,946 posts

49 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
Halb said:
And it's not just Chicago and the Beeb in on the know, it's been smallish spreading outwards for a while now.
http://www.brinkzone.com/general-health/calorie-re...
Sure I first came across this several years ago, through an article about SENS Foundation.

On balance the idea of being hungry all the time didn't appeal, even if that might mean extending my lifespan, that said I don't see why ADF couldn't work in a body building routine if the goal is fitness.

IIRC the science in lay terms was the fast day allowed the body - cells - to switch to repair mode, whereas feed mode made them work, so work out days = feed day, and rest day = fast day.

e600

480 posts

35 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
Put less in your mouth and move more.....tick. Job done

tjlazer

421 posts

57 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
Did the 5:2 for a month, lost nearly 4 kgs and 4% body fat whilst doing so with no other changes. Interesting and worth doing to experience a bit of hunger but ultimately I've upped the exercise instead. Prefer eating what I like! I don't know how sustainable it is long term, i'd probably do it 3 months a year, just to trim down a bit but then I'm not exactly a fatty to start with. I'm waiting on convincing evidence it does improve long term health to take it on full time, its far too early to buy in wholesale, but the research is promising!

Edited by tjlazer on Monday 1st October 21:57

rudecherub

1,946 posts

49 months

[news] 
Monday 1st October 2012 quote quote all
e600 said:
Put less in your mouth and move more.....tick. Job done
The interesting aspect isn't so much about losing weight, that's a happy consequence, ( and people tend to fixate on the short term )

What's more interesting is the measurable health benefits, less cancer, less heart disease and an increased lifespan.

Eating 'normally' every day, even being the 'right' weight - according to this research - shortens your lifespan.

We know this is true in yeast, it's true in mammals ie the usual lab rats and mice, live a lot longer - and people who have done the harder every day restricted calorie diet are measurably 'younger' physiologically.

But given human life span the real proof is decades away.

Edited by rudecherub on Monday 1st October 22:04

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

59 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
hman said:
Fasting diets are not reccomended by anyone in the medical proffession.
Yeah, my doctors are real experts on nutrition and exercise... not!



Well, obviously they have Google but always seem too busy to delve far during an appointment.

Asterix

20,224 posts

111 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
So what would be the difference to simply reducing your calorific intake as an average over the whole week.

This program;

Mon: 2,500
Tues: 600
Weds: 2,500
Thurs: 600
Fri: 2,500
Sat: 2,500
Sun: 2,500

Total: 13,700 calories for the week.

Why not have an average day of 1,957 calories? You're probably still eating under maintenance levels for the average bloke which naturally equals slow but consistent weight loss.

Eat clean and sensibly then it will happen - move a bit more during the day and the calorific deficit will be bigger and you'll lose more weight with the benefits of improved fitness.

Edited by Asterix on Tuesday 2nd October 06:12

Mr Pies

6,096 posts

70 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Asterix said:
So what would be the difference to simply reducing your calorific intake as an average over the whole week.

This program;

Mon: 2,500
Tues: 600
Weds: 2,500
Thurs: 600
Fri: 2,500
Sat: 2,500
Sun: 2,500

Total: 13,700 calories for the week.

Why not have an average day of 1,957 calories? You're probably still eating under maintenance levels for the average bloke which naturally equals slow but consistent weight loss.

Eat clean and sensibly then it will happen - move a bit more during the day and the calorific deficit will be bigger and you'll lose more weight with the benefits of improved fitness.

Edited by Asterix on Tuesday 2nd October 06:12
Nail. Head.


Tiggsy

7,991 posts

135 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Asterix said:
So what would be the difference to simply reducing your calorific intake as an average over the whole week.

This program;

Mon: 2,500
Tues: 600
Weds: 2,500
Thurs: 600
Fri: 2,500
Sat: 2,500
Sun: 2,500

Total: 13,700 calories for the week.

Why not have an average day of 1,957 calories? You're probably still eating under maintenance levels for the average bloke which naturally equals slow but consistent weight loss.

Eat clean and sensibly then it will happen - move a bit more during the day and the calorific deficit will be bigger and you'll lose more weight with the benefits of improved fitness.

Edited by Asterix on Tuesday 2nd October 06:12
I dont do ADF but I do do 16/8 so I fast for 18 hrs and eat for 6 - chucks out the old "6 small meals a day" stuff.

Here are the reasons:

Weight loss - as suggested, not eating for much of the time means less calories, simple enough.

Easy to stick to - its almost impossible to over eat in the time you DO eat enough to ruin the days cal intake (with lots of small regular meals its easy to blow it) This means you get the nice chance to eat big yummy meals on a regular basis.

Feel better - now I'm into it i feel GREAT (and I'm 39 and have worked out all my life/worked in gyms/trained done every diet/supplement/steroid going - so I have something to compare against. I suffer almsot no hunger issues, no cravings and working out fasted is superb.

lastly - I'm a big believer in doing what the body is used to (over millions of years) - I dont believe the human evolved eating 6 small meals a day with a nice big breakfast! In fact (like most meat eating animals) I expect there were days on end waiting to catch a meal then chowing down on a bison. I eat like a lion!


After 3 weeks on this I have lost a steady 2lb a week, got stronger, run faster, felt sharper and eaten lots of big meals! Last night was a local carvery....meat galore, prob a meal of around easy 1000 cals +. Fitted into my daily allowance fine and I wont eat now until after my dead lift session at 3pm.....lion style.

BuzzLightyear

Original Poster:

1,426 posts

65 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Mr Pies said:
Asterix said:
So what would be the difference to simply reducing your calorific intake as an average over the whole week.

This program;

Mon: 2,500
Tues: 600
Weds: 2,500
Thurs: 600
Fri: 2,500
Sat: 2,500
Sun: 2,500

Total: 13,700 calories for the week.

Why not have an average day of 1,957 calories? You're probably still eating under maintenance levels for the average bloke which naturally equals slow but consistent weight loss.

Eat clean and sensibly then it will happen - move a bit more during the day and the calorific deficit will be bigger and you'll lose more weight with the benefits of improved fitness.

Edited by Asterix on Tuesday 2nd October 06:12
Nail. Head.
I agree that this would seem to be a logical argument but, as I understand it, it is not purely down down to the total number of input calories but the periodic fasting that creates the other benefits described.

As I said, I am interested to see if this works for me (and for anyone else willing to try it) and will try to get occasional assessments of % body fat and cholesterol levels etc for proof / disproof, as well as seeing if there is a weight loss and improved fitness, which could be expected anyway from a reduced input.

If there are a decent number of us prepared to try it, we could compare results?

Asterix

20,224 posts

111 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Look - if it works for you, or anyone else, then that's great.

My only issue is, as with any diet that is the latest thing, everything is always 'might' & 'could'.

article said:
"Alternate day fasting is another way of reducing the overall amount of calories eaten to help with weight loss," according to Emer Delaney from the British Dietetic Association.

"There has been some debate recently that this 'new' way of eating can offer major health benefits, however there simply isn't the evidence to back this up."

He says unsurprisingly, reducing the overall intake of calories, whether it's every day or on alternate days, will result in weight loss.

"Whilst it may work for some people, they need to ensure their diet on 'non fast' days is packed with fruit and vegetables, wholegrains, lean protein rich foods such as chicken, fish, turkey and low fat dairy products."
We're all saying the same thing really.

Hoofy

55,053 posts

165 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
"He stuck to this diet for five weeks, during which time he lost nearly a stone and his blood markers, like IGF-1, glucose and cholesterol, improved."

As much as I dislike faddy diets, I can't help but think 5:2 fasting is a good thing. You don't get dramatic improvements like that from normal dieting. Nor do you get increases in HGH from normal dieting.

I can't understand why people are overlooking this just because they are qualified. It's like a doctor in the 18th century who refuses to accept that blood letting is stupid or wearing a toad round your neck to cure sore throats might actually be a waste of time. But you continue to believe 20th century medicine.

Also, surely, any educated, qualified person who is passionate about their field would want to watch a relevant documentary if only to laugh at the presenter.

Thankfully, the people working on my dad are on the cutting edge of cancer research.

Edited by Hoofy on Tuesday 2nd October 10:29

Tiggsy

7,991 posts

135 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Asterix said:
Look - if it works for you, or anyone else, then that's great.

My only issue is, as with any diet that is the latest thing, everything is always 'might' & 'could'.
I'm not sure it is the "Latest thing" - it feels more like a return to how we used to eat. The whole, huge sugary breakfast and regular meals all day long is a modern thing.

The comment that some people make which sums up the daft attitude to food we have is when people say "but you'll go into starvation mode" - right, go ask an African if waiting till 3pm to eat is starving....or if they'd like 600 cals during a famine! The human body (IMO) is well able, and well used, to going sensible periods without food - like any hunter.

Halb

23,106 posts

66 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Fasting isn't the latest thing, it's just getting more attention now, and the benefits are being looked at with more scrutiny.
It's also not just about reducing calories like the 'lower your calories' every day method. There are other things going on, hormone levels for example. Control them and you control everything.
1
3 4 ... 46 47
Reply to Topic