Hi:

Here is a study on ADF: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120

As you probably know, 5:2 was not designed as a weight loss diet. Calories in, calories out would predict, and all evidence so far indicates, weight loss with IF is similar to standard reduced calorie diets. Reported blood tests generally confirm better cholesterol, triglyceride, blood sugar and blood pressure readings that often accompany material weight loss. Compliance seems to be on par or slightly above compliance with other diets, but there is no real support for that claim at this time. Many people, however, are now reporting they have been on 5:2 for over a year with large weight loss results. This is fairly rare with many standard diets, especially the length of time on diet.

Research is just starting on whether the severe calorie restriction that comes with IF has other effects on the body. For instance, there is some thought that ADF, combined with some dietary changes, may cure type 2 diabetes. There is also some evidence that weight loss, and the benefits that come with it, occur regardless of the types of food eaten by the dieters. People also report that after following IF for several months their diets seem to change without real conscious efforts to change them. People report they just start ‘eating better’ (whatever that means for that individual). This takes on added importance as more and more reach their weight loss goals and go into weight maintenance modes. Most maintainers report they intend to continue with some form of IF, if only to lose weight regained. Once understood and practiced, IF seems to be a very effective weight loss ‘tool’. Many consider IF a way of life or way of eating, rather than a diet.

But 5:2 and IF in general is new, and we will have to wait some time for studies to be designed, funded and completed before solid evidence exists one way or the other on other health benefits that may exist.

For now, it is fairly clear 5:2 and IF in general (whether 4:3, ADF, etc.) is safe, cheap and effective for weight loss. It is working for tens of thousands of people worldwide. Additional ‘health benefits’, if any, have yet to be proven. However, IF may be a very exciting area of research in the coming years.

Simcoeluv, while I usually agree with you, I always thought that the 5:2 diet was advertised as an alternate weightloss diet? Michael went on it to loose weight after he realised he could not do ADF or a water diet. I read his book and it talks a lot about creating a caloric deficit by eating twice a week only 500/600 calories, as long as you stay the other days under your TDEE. He then realised that this had other benefits as well.

I always had a problem with people sugar coating the 5:2 approach as not being a diet but a way of life. 5:2 is nothing but another form of dieting. All diets boil down to creating a calorie deficit, nothing more nothing less. Eat less than you spend in calories and you will/ must lose weight, with some exceptions.

If you add exercise, you can earn some extra calories that you can add, but do not need to your daily TDEE.

In my understanding the fact that you can lose weight with 5:2 is more or less proven, the other side effects have been shown to be true with ADF, but not necessarily with 5:2. That is why Dr. Krista Varadi has asked Michael to remove her research from his book, which is based completely on her findings! If you left her findings out, there is not much scientific research left that validates his 5:2 theories!

To the original op: at the end of the day it does not matter how you create your calorie deficit over a week/ month…it all boils down to eating less calories than you spend. I have done all sorts of combinations over the last six months, from ADF, 4:3, 5:2, calorie counting, more exercise, less exercise and they all work the same. The lesser you put into your body during a week the more weight you will lose.

What is mich more interesting in my opinion though is the quality of calories that you put into your body. There are people out there who argue, you will lose weight, even of ice cream, as long as you eat less calories than you spend. To some extent this is true, but the is a whole science out there what each of those calories that you put into your body does to your body. Some apparently are easier changed into fat than others. In a nutshell, I believe that eating mostly (!) healthy will help your weightloss.

I am working out a lot, at least six days a week. I am just back from a 7km run, after 45 minutes of weight training and soon to be off for an hour roller blading. For me to change my body composition it is vital to put the right amount of protein in my body to help muscle repair and to have balanced nutrition in terms of my carbs, fats, proteins and vitamins in form of micro nutrients.

Anyhow, apologies for long blurb…have a great Sunday!
Stef.

Hi Stef:

You have to start with the program. It was on life extension and disease prevention – Alzheimer’s, cancer. Dr. M stated he did not think of himself as fat, but had some worrisome blood results. He was most concerned whether he could come up with a sustainable program that yielded similar results as those enjoyed by the man with high nutrition/constant calorie restriction and his own results after a four day fast (overseen by the same scientist as in the new study mentioned above). Near the end of the program he reported he would try 5:2, which he had decided upon after consulting with one of the researchers (not Varady – Mattson if I remember right). He tried 5:2 for five weeks and reported he had lost some weight, but was most interested in the blood results, which were positive.

After the program aired, people started trying 5:2 and soon reported they were losing weight. While there is not much of a market for a book about a life extension diet, there is a huge market for a weight loss book. The program aired in August, if I remember correctly, the weight loss buzz started a couple of months after that, and the book was hastily written so as to be out by the diet season right after the holidays. The rest is history.

5:2 is in fact a calorie restriction diet, and if you follow it you have to lose weight. You cannot eat to your TDEE for five days and cut 3-4000 calories out of your diet in the other two and not lose weight. Your TDEE will pretty much dictate how much you lose, and how fast. Of course, TDEE includes your exercise level, and water weight fluctuations cloud the short term results.

But it does seem to work regardless of what you eat. Almost everyone seems to have their own ideas about what a nutritious diet really is, and what foods should or should not be eaten, but if you look around this site and others you do not find reports that some diets just don’t respond, while others do. Unless there are particular medical issues involved, everyone doing 5:2 correctly loses weight. As to the ‘quality of calories’, there is much research on that. If you have read some of my posts, you know that I believe it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a low fat diet is unhealthy and is the leading cause of our obesity epidemic and dramatic increase in diabetes and related diseases, including stroke, heart attacks and cancer. I now see a ‘squeeze’ because as the word gets out that sugar is bad, people who still believe fat is bad must now eat more veggies, pasta and bread. It is interesting to note that a Sumo wrestler, who has to get up to 400 pounds or more to compete, uses a diet low in fat and sugar, moderate in protein, and exceptionally high in veggies, noodles, rice and beer to get there. That is the diet many are moving toward (except perhaps for the beer) as they start to cut sugar from their diets but don’t add fat.

The real interesting thing, though, perhaps as illustrated by the study published last week (above), is that fasting seems to have some very real, very substantial effects on the body that have nothing to do with weight loss. The impact on insulin resistance, the beneficial effects for those undergoing chemotherapy, the strengthening of the immune system, the reduction of seizures, are just a few of the reported but not clinical study verified positive aspects of fasting.

I truly wish those that run into 5:2 would not dump it because it ‘doesn’t work for them’, whatever that means, because I believe over time the introduction to fasting that 5:2 provides will end up benefiting them much more than just losing some weight – although there is nothing wrong with that!

Hi:

A recent (2014)brief speech by Mark Mattson, from the BBC program. Info on IF and, for newbies, that last minute or so is very helpful: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+mark+mattson&FORM=VIRE7#view=detail&mid=B4A6E06E1464927D07D0B4A6E06E1464927D07D0

Great links, simcoeluv. I appreciate them!! The Cell paper suggests that severe carbohydrate restriction alone, while eating normal fats and protein, one or two days a week, could generate the positive effects on insulin resistance that we get with 5:2. This makes sense, and for people who don’t need to lose weight, but are facing diabetes, it would be easy to do. Of course we’re all also wanting to reduce our risk of Alzheimer’s and cancer. Dr. Mattson emphasizes energy restriction, and he’s probably right. But I wonder if fat is really an issue other than for weight loss as protein cycling would seem central to those diseases. I need to avoid weight loss at this point as I’ve lost more than 60 pounds. So far I think I’m maintaining on 5:2, but I’m not sure, could start losing again. A problem I’d never envisioned.

Hi:

There is interest in ‘other health benefits’ associated with IF. Part of those benefits arise from fasting getting the body into a ketogenic state. Check out the very last section to see what the possibilities are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet

Amy:

I did not say 5:2, I said IF. Ketosis is the heart of 16:8, for instance. And if you eat a low carb diet before your diet day, and on your diet day, you will often get in ketosis. There are no studies I am aware of that indicate how long ketosis must exist before any benefit is gained. Longo indicates 3/4 days will do it, especially for cancer treatments. He also advocates breakfast/lunch only every day for cancer prevention.

This is just information for those interested in fasting. People can do with it what they want.

On the subject of scientific studies, i came across these two which have interesting findings while searching online. If anyone is interested. One is on the effects of IF in humans and the other is in Rhesus monkeys.

“Scientists have found that calorie restriction — a diet comprised of approximately 30 percent fewer calories but with the same nutrients of a standard diet — does not extend years of life or reduce age-related deaths in a 23-year study of rhesus monkeys. However, calorie restriction did extend certain aspects of health.”
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2012/nia-29.htm

and this one which is talking about identifying what’s going on when we fast to be able to make it into a pill, which is pretty cool. Imagine getting the benefits of fasting in a pill, without needing to actually fast your whole life.

“While the rodent and primate data indicate that lifespan extension is possible with CR, collective analysis of the rodent data suggests that intensity and onset of CR required to induce these effects is probably not suitable for many individuals (70). Epidemiological studies certainly support the notion that a reduced energy intake that is nutritionally sound improves age-associated health. While results of the first randomized trials of CR, although short in duration, suggest a reduction in risk of age-related disease and improvements in some biomarkers of longevity, the ultimate effect of this intervention on lifespan in humans will probably never been determined in the scientific setting. In our short-term study, caloric restriction was not associated with the development of eating disorder symptoms, decreased QOL, depressed mood, or cognitive impairment, all probably indicating the feasibility and safety of CR in humans. However, it is a challenge for most individuals to practice caloric restriction in an obesogenic environment so conducive to overfeeding. Only a very few will be able to practice a lifestyle of caloric restriction and probably benefit from it. There is therefore a need for the search for organic or inorganic compounds that mimic the biological effects of CR. If such compounds, often called “CR mimetics” [such as resveratrol (5, 62)], prove viable in humans, individuals for the most part will opt to enjoy the effects of antiaging via a pill rather than CR.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014770/

I find science thrillingly exciting. The possibilities are truly endless. There is no need to fear it. The paper was explaining the reasons for making a pill is because fasting is difficult for most people and the benefits are not statistically significant to everyone. In order to see the anti aging results, based on the current research, a person would have to fast all their life. I was reading, don’t know if it was in one of these papers or in another, that it was predicted that a person fasting from their early 20’s to their 70’s will gain 5 more years of life expectancy, and that someone starting fasting from their 50’s will only gain a few months. By making a pill it may be possible for everyone to slow down or reverse the effects of aging without having to fast their whole life. The research is mixed showing the complexity of what is going on, it is dependent on many factors and not of significant benefit to everyone. In fact, there has even been studies showing negative effects of fasting for some people and animals. By making a pill they can take the good bits and limit the bad bits and make it beneficial to more people than fasting is.

I actually understood you perfectly 🙂

Hmm, Demidog,

Which of the pharmaceutical companies do you work for exactly…?!