My thoughts on the Fast Diet after 8 months

This topic contains 24 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by LowproteinLonglife 9 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)

CJMT8020

8:13 pm
5 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi all,
I have been following the Fast Diet since April last year and have lost 12 kgs, getting back to a healthy BMI and feeling much better for it. I am a 57 year old woman who has tried a lot of diets over the years, including 3 stints at Weight Watchers, but never maintained the weight loss. I decided I would never “go on a diet” again – whatever I did, it would be something I could keep up for the rest of my life!

In my opinion, the advantages of the Fast Diet are:-

* you only have to do it for one day at a time – a massive advantage over
all other weight loss plans!

* on your non-fast days, there is no calorie-counting. You can eat what
you like, go out for meals etc. Yes it has to be “reasonable”, but it
doesn’t feel like dieting.

* After the first few weeks, the weight loss is slow but constant

The disadvantage is that fasting can be hard, and in my experience it only gets slightly easier after the first few weeks. I still feel more tired, more irritable and anxious and colder (in winter) on fast days than on non-fast days.

I also feel that the Fast Diet seems (perhaps inadvertently) to encourage people to try to lose weight when they don’t need to for health reasons. There is a lot of evidence that obesity leads to poor health, but none that I know of which shows that someone with a BMI 19.4 is less likely to suffer from heart disease, stroke, cancer etc than someone with a BMI of 21.4 (in the book this is the drop in BMI that Mimi achieves on the Fast Diet). I know that the Fast Diet is not primarily for weight loss, but I’ll bet it’s the reason 99% of people who follow it, do so.
Finally, I would just like to point out that the theories of Dr Atkins are not scientific fact, that medical science has not yet recognised “carb addiction” as a condition, and people should take with a pinch of salt (not literally!) some of the opinions put forward as fact on this Forum.
All of the above is just my opinion, and I wish you all every success on the Fast Diet, which is the best tool for living at a healthy weight that I have ever found.

Bootsy Badger

9:03 pm
5 Jan 15
Permalink

Hello!

Just wanted to say I completely agree with you on many of your points. That’s a great summary of the advantages.

About the disadvantages: I still get ‘the chills’ (especially at moment as it’s winter here in England). Sorry it’s still hard for you but for myself more often than not the prospect of fasting is more difficult than when I start the day and actually get into it. Anyway, we’re all different.

I also agree with your reservations about how the focus can so easily shift to weight loss alone. Let’s hope the continuing research will provide more and more concrete reasons to fast for health benefits.

Finally, a big ‘hear hear’ to the need for scepticism towards some of the theories (not facts) that are posited on this, generally very helpful, forum.

I’ve lost about 6kg since August. If interested, you can read my profile for more of my food/dieting history. I too am in my late 50s. In fact, 59 in 11 days but yeah, I’m totally casual about that 😉

Best wishes!

CJMT8020

10:31 am
7 Jan 15
Permalink

Thanks for your comments Bootsy Badger. You’re right about fast days usually being not as bad as anticipated. As many others have said, the key is keeping busy and distracting yourself from thoughts of food. All the best

LowproteinLonglife

9:49 am
10 Jan 15
Permalink

Morning CJMT

Was good to read your post this morning. It’s interesting that in the original Horizon programme that led to 5:2 there was a big focus on the benefits of restricting protein consumption not increasing it, the benefits being linked to decreasing IGF1 within the body which is one of the primary health benefits of a Fasting regime. In fact, the fact that this was a way of eating that didn’t promote the mania around low carb eating was one of the first things that attracted me to this.

The fad there’s been for high protein diets over the last couple of decades has made many Health Gurus rich and many ordinary people unwell, over weight and at a much higher risk of Cancer, Heart disease and of being overweight in the long term.

Yes eating a protein diet works in two ways, firstly if you stick to a very high protein diet and exclude healthy carbohydrates such as veg, fruit and whole-grains you will eat less as it is hard to on a daily basis eat your allowance in calories – as long term your diet becomes very boring – even eating steak all day becomes a chore when you can’t add sauce or some veg. So Atkins and Dukan et al work by encouraging you to eat a restricted calorie intake, although that is not how the diets are promoted. The problem with this is that we live in a world where sooner or later, be it in a week a month or a year you will deviate from your eating regime tempted by the ever present supply of easily and cheaply available supply of ‘temptations’.

The other way protein helps in weight loss is simple and nothing to do with the burning of fat. Protein, calorie for calorie makes you feel fuller than any other food groups such as Fat or Carbohydrates.

I have followed this way of eating since the day after the Horizon programme first aired in 2012,it’s the best decision I have ever made in my life. However it is really disappointing to see that despite the original programme and exerts of the original book promoting a lower protein diet, that there are various contributors to this forum spouting the same old mantras regarding ‘low carb’ eating. Eating low carb is unhealthy, it is not based on science. However it does seem to be based on ‘he who shouts loudest is right’ as the merest hint of criticism of the fad seems to attract a pack of rabid low carbers on your back – ‘they hunt in packs’

Obviously eating a diet fairly high in refined carbohydrates is not good and will lead to health problems but for me following an intermittent fasting regime and a balanced diet (because obviously a diet too low in protein is just as unhealthy as one excluding most carbohydrates)is the way to go

My heartfelt plea is before anyone looks into a low carb eating regime that they do a few goggle searches on line on Dukan diet Bowl cancer, high protein health risks etc. AND watch the original Horizon programme and see where this way of eating first started.

Good health to all

Megxxx

9:55 am
10 Jan 15
Permalink

Congratulations on weight lost. I have just began diet 5 weeks and I have lost 2.5kg. My question is if you stick to this for life ( I plan to) does you weight get to a certain point and then you just sustain it? Or do you need to drop a day to avoid getting too thin? Thanks

LowproteinLonglife

4:10 pm
10 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Meg

For me that’s one of the most challenging parts of this way of eating, although I think with diets like calorie restriction or excluding food groups etc it’s nigh on impossible, for me it’s at least attainable with intermittent fasting.

Going to 1 Fast a week for a few months works for me as I tend to then slowly put a bit on, when the trousers start to become a tad tight I then go back to 5:2 or my more favoured 4:3 until I think (or people around me tell me) I’m looking too thin then go back to one day a week. Personally I find upping the exercise does nothing to keep the weight off if I cut back on the fasting. So in short I allow myself to drift up a bit but keep my toe in the water with a weekly fast and when the time is right I start back fully into the regime. The longer you’ve been fasting the easier and less intrusive you find the process.

In Krista Varady’s book she talks about alternating between 1 day 1000 cals next day anything to maintain and I suppose after 3 days a week on 500 or 600 cals a thousand cals seems like a breeze and having followed 4:3 for so long, alternating one day on, one day off would probably be achievable. The only thing that makes me hesitate on that is the lack of evidence yet as to the on going health benefits that 1000 cals a day as against full 500/600 cals seem to give.

So maintaining is the hardest part of this way of eating – but this is only a ‘relatively tough’ challenge as compared to other weight loss methods where it is a near impossible challenge for the vast majority of the world, as statistics back up.

Good luck

simcoeluv

6:59 pm
10 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi CJMT and welcome:

“Finally, I would just like to point out that the theories of Dr. Atkins are not scientific fact, that medical science has not yet recognized “carb addiction” as a condition, and people should take with a pinch of salt (not literally!) some of the opinions put forward as fact on this Forum.”

The original Atkins diet was simply the diet taught in U.S. medical schools through the 1950s. It declined in popularity (until Dr. Atkins brought it back) when the government and doctors decided, without any scientific facts, that the low fat, high carb diet was the way to go. Predictions at the time (early 1970s) by the highest government and medical officials were that if the population would just eat less fat and more carbs, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer would pretty much be wiped out by the year 2000. The combined government/doctor campaign against eating fat was successful. The populations in the US, Australia, NZ and UK cut their fat consumption by 50% or more, and carb consumption more than doubled. According to the predictions, the population should have become much more healthy. Instead, an obesity epidemic occurred, with much higher levels of diabetes, heart disease (metabolic syndrome) and cancer.

Around 2000 it was becoming more and more clear that the low fat diet was not doing what it had been predicted it should do, and for the first time in decades funding started being made available by the government(s) for research into other than low fat diets. The research has continued since then, and the results have been enlightening.

In other posts I have quoted current leaders in public nutrition as saying currently, the low fat diet is not recommended for anyone. Some researchers have said that if an enemy wanted to design a diet that would cause widespread sickness in a human population, they could do no better than the low fat diet.

It has always been known that a consistently high protein diet will get humans sick. The debate in the past was “Is the fat in the diet getting people fatter, or are the carbs in the diet getting people fatter?”. The government and doctors bet that it was the fat that was the culprit, and it is now clear, and scientifically proven, that they bet wrong. Turns out it was the carbs that were the problem. This makes sense if you recognize that humans are carnivores, not herbivores, and that the human digestive system is designed to process fat and protein and is not designed to process carbs, especially processed carbs.

Here is a 2011 speech to fellow doctors by a medical professor and one of the leading proponents of the low fat diet in the U.S. – until research changed his mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRe9z32NZHY

This lecture is by a different doctor and updates the research to 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QetsIU-3k7Y

This interview of two of the leading researchers in the world on diets goes way into the science and current research results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFD2q5iqevY

Carb addiction has been recognized for many decades. Doctors that paid any attention recognized that if their obese patients went on an Atkins like diet, they demonstrated withdrawal symptoms very similar to those suffered by alcoholics and drug addicts. These symptoms usually went away after a one to two week period of not eating carbs. The two week ‘induction phase’ of the old Atkins diet was designed specifically to help break the addiction to carbs before the dieter began the real Atkins diet. Many people still think the induction phase of the diet, which required eating 20g or less of carbs for two weeks, was the diet itself, but that is not the case. The real diet includes high amounts of non processed carbs (veggies, etc.) and is designed to allow the dieter to eat carbs up to the limit, for them, that causes weight gain.

More recently, science has become able to ‘watch’ brain activity as nutrients are ingested. It seems the brain responds to carbs like it does to alcohol and other addictive substances and can tell the difference, for instance, between carbs and artificial sweeteners: http://news.yahoo.com/brains-know-difference-between-carbs-artificial-sweeteners-202736452–spt.html. Again, observation will show that while many people say they are ‘addicted’ to chocolate, sugar, or bread, for instance, few say they just can’t stop eating spinach or liver.

The research shows, of course, that someone’s sensitivity to carbs is just like their sensitivity to alcohol or other drugs – some can eat all of the sugar they want with no addictive effect, just as some can drink a lot of alcohol over long periods of time without becoming an alcoholic, while some get hooked on processed carbs quickly and easily, just as some get hooked on alcohol after drinking relatively small amounts over short time periods.

It is unimportant for 5:2 purposes what people eat because 5:2 is a calorie based diet, not a type of food based diet. But there is nothing wrong with letting those that may be interested know that new scientific research has changed what has been taught about nutrition for the last four decades. Everyone is trying to be healthy, and eating a healthy, high fat, low carb diet is just one thing they can do if they want to.

Good Luck!

PS Eating too little salt will increase your chance of death more than eating too much salt, so, like many other things, salt in moderation is just fine and very healthy – http://www.news-medical.net/news/20140814/Low-intake-of-dietary-salt-could-be-dangerous.aspx

LowproteinLonglife

1:46 pm
11 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Simcoeluv

It was really interesting to read your opinions yesterday. I tend not to post too much as if you dare to raise any concerns about the healthiness of high protein or high fat fad eating styles the Protein Police tend to converge on you pretty quickly. I see you post on this site quite a lot though and wonder what first attracted you to a way of eating that had as one of its primary goals to reduce the amount of IGF1 in the body.

In the original Horizon programme on BBC2 that spurned 5:2 eating, much of the programme was given over to Dr Mosely and his attempts to lower his IGF1 levels in order to lose a little weight and address other health concerns. There are two ways to do this.
1. Avoid eating TOO MUCH protein
2. Intermittent Fasting
In the original 5:2 book Dr Mosely discusses whether to order a Latte or a filter coffee and errs on the side of filter coffee as he wanted to avoid the high levels of protein in a latte.
Having said all that he also said that reducing protein to too low a level would also have serious adverse health effects and should be avoided.

So what are the aspects of the 5:2 diet that you find interesting and do you find the reduction of IGF1 levels as key or just an inconvenience? Have you watched the original Horizon programme

You mentioned the discredited Atkins diet in your post, if you have time you might want to check out the transcription of another Horizon programme from a few years back that looked into the Atkins fad:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml

The last segment of the programme got down to the nitty gritty of why people have temporary and sometimes quite striking weight loss on the diet. The answer was, purely that those on a restrictive diet such as the Atkins merely and unknowingly ate LESS CALORIES. There are sadly many more healthier ways to eat a reduced calorific diet.

If you say something often enough and loud enough on the internet people tend to believe it as fact. Your statement yesterday that ”This makes sense if you recognize that humans are carnivores, not herbivores, and that the human digestive system is designed to process fat and protein and is not designed to process carbs” is inaccurate/wrong/a lie whichever way you wish to say it because humans are not carnivores we are and our ancestors (if you are not a creationist) are/were omnivores and our digestive systems and TEETH have evolved to process both meat and plants.

It would not be surprising if being new to all this and reading your posts on the Atkins diet that one would assume that the Atkins diet and other high protein fads were a revolution in American dietry health. Well since this historic ‘scientific’ breakthrough in the 1980s has America got fatter or slimmer. Americans (and the rest of the West) are now fatter than we were in the 1970s. The answer is simple, nothing to do with the food industry flooding the world with carbohydrates, simply that we eat 20% more calories now than we did AND have not increased our physical activity levels.

Question: If Americans reduced their calorie intake by 20% but kept the ratio of their food groups the same would they lose weight?

How fat we are is in the Maths. Calories in – minus calories used, the surplus is then converted to stores be that additional energy from carbohydrates, protein or fat. Calories in protein rich foods do not slip through the system or magically self-combust. Like the nutrients contained within the food source the energy is taken by the body and processed.

You stated: ”It has always been known that a consistently high protein diet will get humans sick. The debate in the past was “Is the fat in the diet getting people fatter, or are the carbs in the diet getting people fatter?”.- Er…..Well the answer is its the calories in the food that is making us fatter

You stated ”Carb addiction has been recognized for many decades” LOL

Addiction to gambling is a recognised addiction but nothing is consumed. You can become addicted to anything that gives you a buzz. A body builder standing in front of the mirror after their 5th protein shake of the day admiring their body is addicted to body building and developing muscle. The point is everything and anything can be addictive if you are not emotionally mature enough to deal with it. Telling us that cravings for nice tasting or enjoyable food is an addiction is not an answer to our problem. You stated that you’ve never heard of anyone being addicted to liver I suppose trying to make the point that carbohydrates have some sinister pull on humankind. Well I’ve never heard of someone being addicted to powdered onion gravy and that’s higher in carbohydrates than a chocolate bar, the list is limitless.

The problem with the pseudo science spouted by the Protein Police is that it is dangerous, yes we can all trade links to websites and studies in favour of our arguments but what’s the point. Spending half an hour of your life merely googling IGF1 Cancer, High Protein diets liver disease, Low carb increased risk of cancer heart disease etc would put most people off the high protein route.

I was really pleased to discover this way of eating, it did and has continued to change my life for the better. The problem for the vast industry that has grown up around the pseudo science of low-carbing though is that this way of eating totally contradicts the ground on which it lies. Intermittent Fasting reduces your level of IGF1, eating high levels of protein increases your levels of IGF1. The health benefits from Intermittent fasting (other than the obvious ones from a lower BMI) are from low levels of IGF1.

So in the words often attributed to Marie Antoinette, ‘Let them eat cake…………..bread, steak, oats, toast and anything else they want (but not on at least 2 days a week)

Good Luck!

PS Eating the daily requirements of salt is much healthier than eating too little or too much 🙂

AdrianL76

11:39 am
12 Jan 15
Permalink

Me and my partner love this as its only 2 days a week you don’t have to worry on the other 5 and you can choose which days, so if for an example I went out with friends to a restaurant I wouldn’t be calculating in my head. unlike other slimming regimes or groups where its weekly weigh ins etc. keeping slim doesn’t feel like a hobby or pastime its just 2 days a week being carful.

CJMT8020

1:37 pm
12 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi LowproteinLonglife and simcoeluv,
Thank you for your really interesting posts. I was hoping that my comments might provoke some discussion, as I have been a bit perturbed by the dominance of the high protein/low carb camp on these Forums. I am from the UK, but I would guess that you are both from North America?? It seems to me that the Atkins type diet is far more popular in the U.S. than here and perhaps more accepted as the only healthy way to lose weight? I do agree that protein makes you feel fuller for longer, but I have a number of problems with a diet high in animal protein. Already far too much of the planet is devoted to providing grazing land and/or animal feed, and this is on the increase as countries like China are turning to a more “Western” diet. We need to reduce our dependence on animal protein, not increase it, as it is becoming unsustainable. I am not looking forward to a planet where the only creatures apart from man are domesticated cattle, pigs and chickens.

Anyway, I think we all agree that the Fast Diet is a brilliant way to lose weight, and I for one am very glad I watched the TV programme and bought the book!

benvegi7

2:13 pm
12 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi, I’m new to the group and find your discussions on protein intake very interesting. As a vegetarian for 25 years, the first question heard after sharing this information is “HOW do you get enough PROTEIN?” Then looks of disbelief when I tell them that the amount of protein I need comes from legumes and vegetables. My annual physical results confirm this. I also feel better now, and in better health, than when I ate lots of meat and protein.

I joined this for a support group to lose weight, sounds odd, but gaining weight is easy for me even with an active life style. Still eat too much good food I guess. So will have to monitor food intake on the 5 day cycle as well.

Bootsy Badger

7:45 pm
12 Jan 15
Permalink

Well this turned into a fascinating debate. I was interested in hearing all the arguments, so thanks to all posters. I’d like to chuck in a couple of further points.

What I love about doing 5:2 is I feel I am taking part in a gigantic experiment, although obviously not a fully scientific randomised control trial – but certainly a kind of social process. The controversy is healthy, I think, and part of the way science progresses. (As you can tell, I’m not a trained scientist but just hope this doesn’t sound too ‘fluffy’).

Re: addiction, I consider myself a ‘kind of’ sugar/ refined carb/ chocolate ‘addict’ but that is my shorthand for an emotional attachment, rather than a physical dependency. Therefore part of my approach to tackling it is through making cognitive/ psychological changes in my attitude to my consumption of carbs, which aim to lead to a reduction of refined carbs, rather than straightforwardly limiting them. Hope this makes sense. However, that doesn’t mean I am convinced that we need a high intake of protein, either. I am a meat-eater but I agree with the comments about the impact on the environment of intensive animal rearing, so think it is important that meat is only a small proportion of our protein intake.

simcoeluv

11:41 pm
12 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Bootsy:

It is fascinating to me that people are ‘talking protein’. From a dietary and nutritional standpoint, protein intake is necessary for human survival, but too much of it causes illness and development of metabolic syndrome, among other things. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25489333

If you think of the three basic nutritional components – carbs, protein and fat – in the form of a teeter totter, protein is the pivot in the middle, with fat on one end and carbs on the other. Research shows that because of the way the body processes carbs, especially processed carbs, eating a lot of carbs is detrimental to human health. Even eating a lot of fruits and vegetables seems to cause an increase of saturated fats in the bloodstream, but eating saturated fat from animals/other sources does not cause such a bloodstream increase.

The current research shows that the ‘ideal’ human diet should get about 70% of calories from fat, 20-25 from protein and 10 or less from carbs, and most of those should come from fruits and veggies. If a person does not want to get their fat calories from animals, they can get them from dairy, eggs, coconut oil and natural olive oil, nuts and other ‘natural’, non animal sources.

As far as addiction goes, it is a common misconception that all addictions are ‘physical dependencies’. In fact many addictions are mental. Meth can addict a person on first use (no chance to build physical dependency). Carb addiction also seems to be mental – the research cited showed brain activity by just swishing carbs around in the mouth and spitting them out – they were not ingested but impacted the brain as if they were.

From a 5:2 standpoint, it works with all types of foods – one of its elegant, genius attributes. But an awful lot of people report they get hungry if they eat carbs and do not if they eat fat. The reason, we now know, is that the body has not developed satiety responses to carbs like it has to fats/proteins. Most people are hard pressed to eat a 16 ounce steak and not feel full, but many can eat a bag of chips, a huge plate of pasta, lots and lots of bread or a bunch of cookies (or all of the above) and be hungry and looking for more food an hour later. That is because the body processes them quickly, stores them as glycogen or fat quickly, and then tells you your blood sugar is getting low and you need to eat some food (sorry for being non scientific, and in case you wonder why low fat diets often recommend eating 6 or more times a day.). Complex carbs (most veggies) are processed somewhat more slowly, so don’t have an effect that is as ‘quick’ as processed carbs. But all carbs, regardless of origin, are sugars and are processed more quickly than fats and proteins.

The science is interesting, and can be confusing to some (eating fruits/veggies leads to higher blood saturated fat levels – really?), but it is what it is. Ways to measure, photo (the working mind – really?), test and analyze have developed very quickly recently and the information being produced is changing old beliefs and assumptions. In my opinion, people can choose to put in their bodies what they want, in any amounts they want from whatever sources they want. Personally, I love beer and potato chips and have no intention of eliminating them from my diet regardless of what the ‘research’ says. But I think it nice if people eat what they eat based on knowledge of facts, rather than opinion, belief or previous incorrect instruction. As I have posted before, a long time ago, you would have graduated from the greatest university on the planet, having studied under the greatest scholars of the time, and you would absolutely, positively have known that the world was flat. Because that is what you had been taught.

Good Luck!

PS: CJMT – given your comments, some might classify you as a hypocarnivore! However, science does not commonly apply the term to humans. But, then, what is in a name?

LowproteinLonglife

3:20 pm
14 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi all, hope all is well.

CJMT I’m not a vegetarian myself (too much of an addiction to Pepperoni and Lamb Dhansak I’m afraid) but I totally see where you’re coming from in regard to the unsustainability of our current requirements for meat. When we’re gone, or possibly even before, our children and grandchildren will have some very difficult decisions to make. This planet can not feed 7/8 billion plus people adequately with a fair percentage of our nutrition coming from meat – but other than cutting it out for Lent one year I’ve been unable to kick the habit, which is strange as I’ve managed to pack up smoking 🙂

Simcoeluv I’m not sure whether it’s just a wind-up or whether you really believe it but the statement:

‘ The current research shows that the ‘ideal’ human diet should get about 70% of calories from fat, 20-25 from protein and 10 or less from carbs, and most of those should come from fruits and veggies’

So, if a persons aim was say to eat 2000 cals a day. One bowl of Oats with semi skimmed milk would alone be 14% of your daily intake. 4% over your limit before you’ve even had a single cherry tomato!

The current recommendations of the Institute for medicine says:

The Institute of Medicine recommends you consume between 45 and 65 percent of your total daily calories from carbohydrates, 10 to 35 percent from protein and 20 to 35 percent of your daily calorie intake from fats.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/544519-how-to-find-out-the-percentage-of-protein-carbs-fat-per-day/

Below is a link to the Institute of Medicine to put their findings into context

http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM.aspx

radically different from your split. No doubt one survey or research project came out with your 70% fat split but to say ‘current research’ is AGAIN misleading or outright wrong as it gives the impression that that particular statement is considered the most accurate and recent info….but then again it may have been a wind up :-). The problem is when things are stated as FACTS they are taken away by others and before you know it they’re spouted as gospel.

Good Luck!

simcoeluv

5:08 pm
14 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Low:

The info you quoted is more than dated, it never had any research to support it.

Perhaps if you watched the links I posted and understood the content?

Good Luck!

LowproteinLonglife

12:09 pm
15 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Simcoeluv

Thanks for getting back to me. Apologies for not finding your link on the 70% of calories from fat 20% from protein and 10% carbohydrate, you hadn’t posted it in your post and sometimes it’s hard to find the time to trawl through your posts. Could I ask you to post it here and I’ll have a look – sounds interesting 🙂

To say that the Institute of Medicine publicises dietary advice not backed on research is a bit surprising though. I’ve posted info below on the United States Department of Agriculture current recommendations, summarised on the Livestrong website.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/300129-the-best-ratio-of-carbs-protein-fat/

To put things into context again,Livestrong are a charitable organisation dedicated to giving impartial health guidance and support by bringing together recent research and good practice advice.

http://www.livestrong.org/

The point I took issue with you on your statement:

‘The current research shows that the ‘ideal’ human diet should get about 70% of calories from fat, 20-25 from protein and 10 or less from carbs, and most of those should come from fruits and veggies’

…is that from the way you phrased the statement as A FACT, some reading that would assume that, that is now the recommended way of eating, which it is not. That’s worrying when you consider that one bowl of Quaker oats with semi skimmed milk would put you over your allowance of carbohydrates without any veg or fruit or milk in your tea or coffee for the rest of the day and the rest of your diet would have to be 100 % Fat and protein….which would rule out virtually every food on the Earth 😉

So thanks in advance for your posting of the link to the research papers

Take care and Good luck!

simcoeluv

5:45 pm
15 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Low:

The links are in my post above (10 Jan) and go far beyond a simple dietary breakdown of how much of what to eat. The research shows that carbs, especially processed carbs, are detrimental to human health. You will have to read the summaries of the research I have given, and the research papers themselves if you want, to understand.

You continue to rely on outdated information to support your position, which has been the government/doctor pushed position for decades. Some governments are coming off the position now (Sweden is one that has basically started recommending the Atkins type diet – so it has hardly been discredited – http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sweden-shifts-national-dietary-guidance-on-eating—steers-toward-low-carb-low-glycemic-food-recommendations-229541991.html), but it takes countries a long time to do an about face on a subject they have been wrong on for so long. They simply don’t ‘look good’ admitting they have been wrong and have been pushing an unhealthy diet on their populations which has led to an obesity epidemic and an increase in diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Please read the new information – giving old and outdated information as support for your position is not helpful.

Good Luck!

redfan

6:01 pm
15 Jan 15
Permalink

Hello everyone. I have just completed my second week on the FD (4 fast days) and I am delighted to be able to say that I have lost 6 lbs. I imagine that this is because there was quite a bit to get rid of and I certainly don’t expect to keep that rate of loss in the longer term. My query is this: When the weight starts to come down where does it show first. Six pounds seem like a lot to me but I’m not seeing much evidence yet.

simcoeluv

6:23 pm
15 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi redfan and welcome:

There is no answer to your question. Everyone loses weight differently. My only comment is have patience.

Here are some tips: https://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/the-basics-for-newbies-your-questions-answered/

Good Luck!

redfan

10:03 pm
15 Jan 15
Permalink

Thanks, simcoeluv. I think that I might have posted my query in the wrong section but you picked it up anyway. My 6 lbs loss after 4 fasting days is just the encouragement that I needed. Having taken the time to read some other posts, including your recommendations, it would appear that most of the ancillary experiences that I have come up against are fairly common (feeling a bit cold, feeling sleepy, worrying about overstepping the dreaded ‘600’ etc etc). I am greatly encouraged to make 5:2 a regular part of my life for the foreseeable future and I’ll report anything that might be mildly interesting in the relevant section.

LowproteinLonglife

1:52 pm
16 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Simcoluv, thanks for getting back to me.

Sorry for the misunderstanding about the studies, when you said that:

‘The current research shows that the ‘ideal’ human diet should get about 70% of calories from fat, 20-25 from protein and 10 or less from carbs, and most of those should come from fruits and veggies’

I had assumed that you were referring to recently published reports, thanks for clarifying that they were in fact youtube videos, one being a speech during lunch 4 years ago at a convention, another being a poorly produced (when the guy at the beginning says ‘are we recording this’ was a real laugh out loud moment) video in a dimly lit room where in the slides were indecipherable and another being from an organisation promoting its low carb diet with the two experts being authors of diet books in the low carbohydrate world, one of which is ‘The new Atkins diet and a new you’.

If you are going to call advice from the Department of Agriculture and the institute of Medicine for 2014 ‘outdated’ and then offer Youtube videos from 2011 and 2013 your argument kind of loses its rigour……..again

Watching the Youtube clips is a few hours of my life I’ll never get back 🙂 and if there were time I’d spell out the weaknesses, the gaps and the lack of factual basis on which much of it was built. One interesting thing though is two of the clips talked about the work of Ancel Keys who published a report in the early 1970s discussing the link between an increased incidence of death and High cholesterol. Ancel was born in 1904 and died in 2004 so I’m assuming he took his own advice and followed a low fat diet.

One of the common themes through the 3 Youtube clips though was ‘since the 1970s we’ve all got fatter, despite following the governments advice to eat a low fat high fibre diet’. True that we have all got fatter, untrue that we have followed a low fat high fibre diet. On official statistics people in the West eat higher than recommended Fat and higher than recommended Protein levels…….and higher than recommended Carbohydrate levels……..So why are we as a culture getting fatter. Possibly because we eat TOO MANY CALORIES be they from fat, protein or carbohydrate. Portion sizes have increased 20% since the 1950s and we eat more often.

Look, we are all entitled to our opinions, but opinions should be stated as opinions not facts. My gripe with your post is you state opinions as facts, something that happens too much on the internet. Your statement that recent research shows that the ideal human diet is 70% fat, 20% protein and 10% carbohydrate is OPINION not fact, an opinion not backed up by many studies…however like a lot of the pseudo-science around low-carbing if you say it enough people believe it.

Another one of your gems:

‘Some governments are coming off the position now (Sweden is one that has basically started recommending the Atkins type diet – so it has hardly been discredited –’

Yes in Sweden there has been a dramatic rise in popularity of high fat high protein diets but there has also been a corresponding rise in cardio vascular deaths, here’s one large sample study

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026

To summarise it, as people decreased their carbohydrate intake and increased their protein/fat intake – more of them died, Sweden has a bit of a problem with that at the moment

Note this is a study not a youtube clip by people trying to push a product or make a name for themselves in the world of ‘low-carbimania’

Protein and fat are not bad, they do not have adverse effects on human health. They as part of a balanced diet with healthy carbohydrates (and the odd occasional unhealthy carbohydrate 😉 )will help you live life that is healthy and hopefully long.

Apologies for the ‘rant’ but I felt there were some things about your posts on this thread that needed challenging.

One last question; I asked it in my original post but didn’t get an answer. Given that you obviously believe that Intermittent Fasting is a good way to live your life. What are your views on IGF1 and IF and health benefits and how a diet high in protein negatively impacts upon that?

Take Care and Good Luck!

simcoeluv

5:48 pm
16 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Low:

Igf is meaningless to me. The studies I have seen indicate it goes up with IF (that info was in the tapes you watched but you apparently missed it – it is also in separately posted studies, in case you did not like the presentation – kill the messenger?).

You very much remind me of a graduate from that greatest of all schools I mentioned above who, when informed for the first time that new information indicated the world was round, simply stated no, it is flat, went back to their old text book from their college days, opened to the page that said the world was flat, pointed to it and said – see, I told you it was flat!

You have your opinions and beliefs, and are entitled to them.

Good bye!

LowproteinLonglife

6:32 pm
17 Jan 15
Permalink

Hi Simcoeluv

Well,you’ve really put your foot in your mouth this time mate. To say:

‘Igf is meaningless to me. The studies I have seen indicate it goes up with IF (that info was in the tapes you watched but you apparently missed it’

So, it transpires that you have not even seen the Horizon programme in which Dr Mosely first devised this way of eating (5:2) or read the 5:2 Fast Diet book. If you had and had retained anything at all from it you could not possibly make the statement posted above.

A large section of the Horizon documentary revolved around Dr Mosely and his attempts to lower his IGF1 levels – watch it it’s interesting
Or
Read the book for Christ’s sake and pay special attention to the pages starting from the section entitled The Science of Fasting, especially on page 28 onwards.

Your heart is obviously in the right place BUT posting your opinions as if they are facts, for example you stated earlier in this thread ‘The current research shows that the ‘ideal’ human diet should get about 70% of calories from fat, 20-25 from protein and 10 or less from carbs’. Current research does not show that to be a fact, it’s ridiculous to suggest that current scientific opinion, getting 10% of your calories from Vegetables, Wholegrains and other carbohydrates is healthy. In fact I bet if you looked at your diet over the past week it would be nowhere near that split.

Also promoting the unhealthy Atkins high fat high protein diet seems strange as that diet would send your IGF1 levels through the roof. Lowcarbing to a degree on a Fast day makes sense as the body needs daily refilling with protein and your nutritional and calorific choices are pretty limited on a FD it also adds to satiety much more effectively than carbohydrates or fat. But following a low carbohydrate diet 24/7 (like the Atkins diet)whilst fasting surely ‘runs the risk’ of negating some of the health benefits of intermittent fasting, IF you follow the science that the 5:2 Fast Diet book was based on.

Look if you are going to post on the 5:2 website wouldn’t it be better to at least read the book and spend an hour watching the programme.

You signed off with:

‘You have your opinions and beliefs, and are entitled to them.

Good bye!’

Totally agree mate but opinions are opinions and should be presented as such only facts based in science and rigorously and robustly tested should be presented as facts

Take care, good luck, goodbye and happy reading (remember its called the ‘The Fast Diet’ and I’m sure you can purchase it from this website.

HappyNow

11:39 pm
17 Jan 15
Permalink

Fascinating discussion here.

So we all agree that over reliance on refined carbs and red meat isn’t a cunning long term plan then?!

LowproteinLonglife

11:57 pm
17 Jan 15
Permalink

I think that sums it up beautifully Happynow! 🙂