# Alternate Day Fasting



## Bribie G (24/4/13)

Since the Previous Easter, 2012, I dropped from 98 down to 92 kilos but since stopping work, exploring the wonderful world of Indian Curry and settled in the new place my weight has crept back up to 95 and heading a bit North every week.

Came across this concept on an SBS show which I hadn't heard of, might give it a try. It seems to be getting very popular overseas. Will report.

Basically you have a feed day then a fast day then a feed day ad infinitum. You don't actually fast as such, just limit yourself to 600 calories for the day. Apparently you don't tend to pig out the next day as long as you have a good breakfast, you can eat basically what you feel like and can still lose up to a kilo a week.

I'd guess the human body evolved to scoff a deer with your tribe over a couple of days then go without food for a day or so while you tracked down the next deer / goat /missionary and wife whatever and just snacked on a few roots and berries in the meantime. Don't see too many fat Aborigines or Bushmen in old photos. Makes sense.

Today: 1 rasher of streaky bacon sweated then 2 eggs cooked in the fat
1 Californian Navel
bowl of home made beef soup

1 hour power walk down the beach and back to see if the Meridian Resort has finally slid into the Ocean (analogous to hunting down the next deer)

Around 550 cals.


Tomorrow: Full English brekkie, snack at 3pm, curry, rice and chappatis for dins.

Also it will of course have to be alternate day grogging as well. :blink:


----------



## tricache (24/4/13)

Interesting idea...is this similar thinking to the Paleolithic diet?


----------



## DarkFaerytale (24/4/13)

i also had heard about this on SBS, please keep us updated

i'm overweight, i was severly overweight headed into obese territory but have been on the light n easy bandwagon for several months now

without exercising i am easily loosing .5kg a week and would recomend it to anyone who was thinking of trying it.


----------



## tricache (24/4/13)

DarkFaerytale said:


> i also had heard about this on SBS, please keep us updated
> 
> i'm overweight, i was severly overweight headed into obese territory but have been on the light n easy bandwagon for several months now
> 
> without exercising i am easily loosing .5kg a week and would recomend it to anyone who was thinking of trying it.


Totally agree with the Lite N Easy meals, works a charm and not THAT bad for "diet" food


----------



## Dave70 (24/4/13)

Bribie, if you want to give this IF thing a red hot go, I recomend following this guys protocol. He basically wrothe the book and has the clients and research behind him to back it up. I've done the 18/6 protocol in the past with good results after I gave it a few tweaks to suit myself.

IF is no magic bullet, but it delivers the goods if you have the disipline. As will any diet.

http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html

If you want to strip the fat as quick as possible, nothing beats keto in the short term. If you can stand the carb depleation.
Keep them below 100g or less per day and the weight just falls off. Initially water weight, followed by fat.
It's not ideal, but it works.

Sadly, theres no way to circumvent six schooners a day.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (24/4/13)

do you have to not drink on every second day? 

there are something like 180cal in a pint.


----------



## sponge (24/4/13)

On the day of fasting, just have 3 pints and a piece of fruit. That's about 600 calories isn't it?


----------



## Bribie G (24/4/13)

Or stay pissed on my fast day


----------



## Nick JD (24/4/13)

If I remove the beer from my diet I'd be anorexic in 6 months.


----------



## jyo (24/4/13)

I watched the second half of that doco and it was pretty interesting.

The fasting mice in the experiment started to grow new brain cells.

So I can be skinny and smart?


----------



## TasChris (24/4/13)

Bribie G said:


> Don't see too many fat Aborigines or Bushmen in old photos.


or many over 60



jyo said:


> I watched the second half of that doco and it was pretty interesting.
> 
> The fasting mice in the experiment started to grow new brain cells.
> 
> So I can be skinny and smart?


Only if you are a mouse

I am over weight but I have come to the realization that there is no secret, no short cuts etc after several many half serious attempts to loose weight the "easy" way.
If energy in is greater than energy used then excess goes into storage.
So either eat less or exercise more or do both if you want to loose weight.
No short cuts in life.

I have managed to give up the smokes, so cutting back on food and increasing exercise can't be that hard... in winter in Tasmania...Hmmm


----------



## sponge (24/4/13)

TasChris said:


> If energy in is greater than energy used then excess goes into storage.


This is essentially what I used when I lost ~18kg in an 18 month period. There are many diets and lifestyle changes that one can do, but essentially it comes down to using more energy than you consume. Quite simple (equation-wise, maybe not so much actually achieving this goal).

Personally, I'd struggle fasting on every second day though. I just enjoy food and drink too much... Probably helps that I've managed to keep the weight off and am playing sport/exercising ~4 days a week. Good luck for any individuals who attempt the challenge though!


----------



## Nick JD (24/4/13)

You pull up to the servo with half a tank. You put in thre quarters of a tank and a quarter goes into the reserve tank.

Next time you pull into the servo with a quarter of a tank and fill it up with a whole tank worth ... another quarter of a tank went into reserve.

Here's the kicker: you can'tswitch onto reserve tank _until the main tank is dry. _

That's why people are fat.


----------



## tricache (24/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> You pull up to the servo with half a tank. You put in thre quarters of a tank and a quarter goes into the reserve tank.
> 
> Next time you pull into the servo with a quarter of a tank and fill it up with a whole tank worth ... another quarter of a tank went into reserve.
> 
> ...



Fark...I feel like I'm in maths back at school again


----------



## Dave70 (24/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> You pull up to the servo with half a tank. You put in thre quarters of a tank and a quarter goes into the reserve tank.
> 
> Next time you pull into the servo with a quarter of a tank and fill it up with a whole tank worth ... another quarter of a tank went into reserve.
> 
> ...


Pretty much keto in a nutshell.

If you main tank was full of chips and cake and your reserve full of blubber.


----------



## pk.sax (24/4/13)

I think I lost a few kilos recently. Basically decided that at least one meal a day would be low/no carb. Pref lunch.
Normal but healthy dinner. Worked out well, tried no carb first and it was horrible, made me drink... Felt the beer baby shrinking as the week went through. I've gone off t now but continue avoiding pans full of butter sautéed potatoes and such.


----------



## Nick JD (24/4/13)

Dave70 said:


> Pretty much keto in a nutshell.
> 
> If you main tank was full of chips and cake and your reserve full of blubber.


Mmmm, acetone breath...


----------



## Black Devil Dog (24/4/13)

There's a radical diet that has been around for a while now, but most people seem to be unaware of it.

How it works is like this, you eat a moderate amount of meat, this can be red, white or fish, you eat a moderate amount of fruit, a moderate amount of vegetables, a moderate amount of bread, cereals, pasta or rice and a moderate amount of dairy foods. Combine this with some moderate excercise, only consume a moderate amount of alcohol and minimal consumption of sweets and junk food.

I know it's a radical concept and there will be non believers who will never accept it, but I'm amazed that my weight stays at 83 kg year after year by following this bizzare diet.


----------



## Bribie G (25/4/13)

Day 2 - so this is what it's like to be sober.


Feck, don't tell me I finally got away from that Fecking Island


----------



## tavas (25/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> You pull up to the servo with half a tank. You put in thre quarters of a tank and a quarter goes into the reserve tank.


Especially when you eat a roadhouse pie and chips when you fill up the car.

I highly recommend the CSIRO Diet. All about portion size and when you eat carbs. No carbs at night. 1 kg per week weight loss. No gimmicks, the book explains what to eat, what different food groups do, and gives you a 6 week meal plan. Too easy. Plus you can have alcohol, just moderate it.


----------



## black_labb (25/4/13)

tavas said:


> Especially when you eat a roadhouse pie and chips when you fill up the car.
> 
> I highly recommend the CSIRO Diet. All about portion size and when you eat carbs. No carbs at night. 1 kg per week weight loss. No gimmicks, the book explains what to eat, what different food groups do, and gives you a 6 week meal plan. Too easy. Plus you can have alcohol, just moderate it.



Yep. eat healthily and eat the right meals for your bodies activity. Carbs are good for breakfast and lunch. Avoid them at dinner as the carbs turn to fat as you won't burn them in bed (there are exceptions ). Salads are healthy but the dressings are 50% fat+. You would be better off with a steak and actually feel full, or have the vegies in a way that you don't need to drown them in fat to be edible. If you drink sweet drinks be mindful how much sugar they have (but diet versions are still terrible for you).

Exercise is great for a couple reasons. The less obvious reason is muscle mass burns more energy even if you are idle.

Otherwise the simple equasion is true.


----------



## Nick JD (25/4/13)

I've decided to just eat whatever the hell I want and exercise the stuff away. Things I've been reading recently shows that there isn't a better way to be healthy - lots of valuable metabolic processes that can't happen any other way.

I paddle (12' prone paddlepoard) 6-8km 2 times a week, surf at least 3 times most weeks and walk 6km each day monday to saturday.

Carbs, GET IN MA BELLY! Usually drink between 1 and 2 liters of beer a night.


----------



## Bribie G (25/4/13)

That's only three pints, that's only a cock tease :beerbang:


----------



## TidalPete (25/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> I've decided to just eat whatever the hell I want and exercise the stuff away. Things I've been reading recently shows that there isn't a better way to be healthy - lots of valuable metabolic processes that can't happen any other way.
> 
> I paddle (12' prone paddlepoard) 6-8km 2 times a week, surf at least 3 times most weeks and walk 6km each day monday to saturday.
> 
> Carbs, GET IN MA BELLY! Usually drink between 1 and 2 liters of beer a night.


+1 Nick JD

It's all about exercise in any shape or form Bribie. 
Eat in moderation & stay off the piss from Monday morning to Friday night except in exceptional circumstances. 
A broken back ended my surfing career yonks ago but still try to keep my swims up & do my walks. Hopefully this should keep me in my size 32's for another 50 years. :lol:

PS -- Just saw your post & you're a basket case Bribie. :lol:


----------



## goomboogo (25/4/13)

Black Devil Dog said:


> There's a radical diet that has been around for a while now, but most people seem to be unaware of it.
> 
> How it works is like this, you eat a moderate amount of meat, this can be red, white or fish, you eat a moderate amount of fruit, a moderate amount of vegetables, a moderate amount of bread, cereals, pasta or rice and a moderate amount of dairy foods. Combine this with some moderate excercise, only consume a moderate amount of alcohol and minimal consumption of sweets and junk food.
> 
> I know it's a radical concept and there will be non believers who will never accept it, but I'm amazed that my weight stays at 83 kg year after year by following this bizzare diet.


It won't take off unless you get a celebrity endorsement.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (26/4/13)

+1 for the CSIRO book. It's called "Total wellbeing diet" or something, not a weight loss plan as such, more a long term this-is-how-you-should-eat plan.


----------



## Judanero (26/4/13)

A friend put me onto this stuff called crystal meth. I no longer eat, sleep or have low energy. The kilos are melting away and the house has never been tidier. Thankyou crystal meth.


----------



## pcmfisher (26/4/13)

Eat less.


----------



## RobW (26/4/13)

I'm giving this a try but with 2 restricted calorie days per week rather than alternate fast days because I reckon it's easier to fit into a working week.
Mosely showed good results doing this and the thing that really appeals to me is the effect on cholesterol levels and diabetes.
I don't especially need to diet (188cm & 90 kg) but the metabolic benefits look really good.

http://thefastdiet.co.uk/

First lo-cal day was yesterday and it wasn't difficult - you just need a calorie counter and a few diet recipe books.
I even managed to sneak in a small scotch to celebrate the Bombers' win :beerbang:


----------



## mikec (26/4/13)

Gimmick diets are rarely good for you.

Eat better foods, do some exercise, you'd be surprised how easy it is to lose weight.

I just knocked off 14 kilos in about 5 months. Just from:
- eating better (not necessarily less)
- exercising once or twice a week (ride bicycle to work, 7kms each way)
- still drinking beer most days

I used an iphone app called Myfitnesspal, which helps you keep track of your calories and exercise and your goals. Don't have an iphone? Just use the website.


----------



## Bribie G (26/4/13)

I've been eating Paelo for quite a while but it's a lifestyle thing that's put the weight on, not necessarily eating bad food - for example I don't eat grains apart from occasional rice, don't eat sugars, beans and very few potatoes and no junk food apart from a pie twice a year whether I need one or not, but do base my food on Veg, some fruit, poultry, meat, fish, offal, nuts, good saturated fats like butter, etc. However there wouldn't have been many people 40 thousand years ago who would have luxuriated in so much food on a daily basis. So I'd not describe it as a gimmick, probably more like we were evolved to do. Also I'll be doing the one hour walk on the feeding days.

I've decided to knock it back to four feeding days and three diet days, Mon, Wed and Fri and take the weekends off.


----------



## RobW (26/4/13)

It's not a diet, and I don't think you can call it a gimmick - not like the Israeli army diet or Atkins or whatever.
I think there's some worthwhile science behind it.

I eat well and I exercise but each year when I get my annual checkup the Cholesterol and Triglycerides sneak up a little more.
It seems to be something that happens as you get older.
I'm interested in seeing if this approach has an effect on those markers.

The doc has threatened me with cholesterol reducing drugs if it goes much higher.


----------



## mikec (26/4/13)

Without doing all the work of actually quoting sources, I think you'll find most nutritionists recommend eating small portions, often, rather than eating large portions, then skipping a meal (or two or three).


----------



## Liam_snorkel (26/4/13)

pcmfisher said:


> Eat less.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-jy3OtZAss


----------



## RobW (26/4/13)

This isn't about skipping meals. It's reducing the calory count for 2 days a week.

I still had 3 meals yesterday - they just had low calorie counts.

Breakfast - Porridge and coffee
Lunch - Vegetable soup (lots of vegies) and tea
Dinner - vegie burger and coffee
plus a couple more coffees and teas through the day (and a little Scotch)


----------



## Bribie G (26/4/13)

The "eat less" advisors are a bit like me saying "give up smoking, it's dead easy". I don't smoke, I don't see what all the fuss is about, these people are just lazy and can't discipline themselves not to smoke. Yeah easy for me to say. I had a relation who gave up heroin easily but can't quit the fags.

I can easily get back down to 78 kilos as I was at 45 - dead simple, go jogging every day - a 10K run three times a week and a half marathon every fortnight.

Loved it in those days, couldn't be arsed nowadays.

One problem when you get older is that you need less food in general, but at 55 you still have the appetite of a 45 year old. Something that most of the younger members who have no trouble with their weight at the moment are going to find out for themselves.


----------



## bum (26/4/13)

**** this thread for pitting bro-science against no-science. I can't work out who to hate the most.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (27/4/13)

Why not hate both?


----------



## bum (27/4/13)

Yah, I'm all over that. I'm just trying to quantify it.


----------



## Bribie G (27/4/13)

Skinny students who live on 2 minute noodles are not allowed to post in this thread

B)


----------



## pcmfisher (27/4/13)

Bribie G said:


> The "eat less" advisors are a bit like me saying "give up smoking, it's dead easy". I don't smoke, I don't see what all the fuss is about, these people are just lazy and can't discipline themselves not to smoke. Yeah easy for me to say. I had a relation who gave up heroin easily but can't quit the fags.
> 
> I can easily get back down to 78 kilos as I was at 45 - dead simple, go jogging every day - a 10K run three times a week and a half marathon every fortnight.
> 
> ...



No one said losing weight or giving up smoking is easy.
The fact of the matter is these crazy arse diets are usually not good for you and/or they don't work in the long term.
It stands to reason, just cutting down a little the amount you eat, especially the hi cal stuff, and you will lose weight and stand a much better chance of keeping it off. Its not rocket science.

You say people are lazy or not disciplined enough to give up smoking. If thats not true, what is it?

Yep, when you get older you don't need as much food, therefore as Dr Rudi says.....Eat Less!


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/4/13)

Mosely was on RN's The Science Show this weekend, he said something about fasting for 2 days per week worked well for him and was quite manageable. It's worth a listen.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/eat-fast-and-live-longer/4649612


----------



## Dave70 (29/4/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> Mosely was on RN's The Science Show this weekend, he said something about fasting for 2 days per week worked well for him and was quite manageable. It's worth a listen.
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/eat-fast-and-live-longer/4649612


Whilst I respect the good doctors 'gonzo' spirit of self experimentation, I cant help but be a little skeptical when he promotes his diet book as life extending.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/4/13)

well yeah. it worked in rats, but long term clinical trials in humans would obviously take a while.. and the evidence from the great depression is only anecdotal.


----------



## Dave70 (29/4/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> well yeah. it worked in rats, but long term clinical trials in humans would obviously take a while.. and the evidence from the great depression is only anecdotal.


The evidence from _Hongerwinter _studies was pretty solid. At least as far as suggesting starving yourself when pregnant will lead to host of shitty things that will plague the child into its adulthood.
Could have been worse. Could have promised eternal life.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/4/13)

yeah that was total malnourishment - a bit different to calorie reduction.

on a side note I remember reading/hearing about how the _grandchildren _of men who were in leaner times between the age of 6-12 (pre and early pubescent) have a reduced risk of heart disease and the inverse for the grandchildren who were well fed at that age. interesting stuff.


----------



## komodo (29/4/13)

I can't see this alternate day fasting working.
We used to do similar with cattle. We called it sling shotting though. Run them in a dry paddock for a few weeks then give them a week in a good paddock and pump them full of market scrap vegetables right before going to market. Would put the weight on quick smart.

Like wise I'm under a personal trainer after hitting triple figures with my weight last year. His first comment when looking at my diet was "you don't eat regularly enough"
I've dropped 10kgs so far so something must be working...


----------



## Bribie G (29/4/13)

Surprised this thread is still going, haven't looked in here for a few days.

Lost the best part of a kilo already but will report back in a couple of weeks as that could just be a fluid thing.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (10/5/13)

this thread reminds me of the Butterfield Diet Plan. It works for me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgwJfbeCeU


----------



## Dave70 (10/5/13)

The secret's in the glass of chilled water and ice pudding.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/diet-fitness/weight-loss/question447.htm


----------



## Midnight Brew (15/5/13)

It's been about a couple of weeks, how are you travelling Bribie?


----------



## Snow (15/5/13)

RobW said:


> It's not a diet, and I don't think you can call it a gimmick - not like the Israeli army diet or Atkins or whatever.
> I think there's some worthwhile science behind it.
> 
> I eat well and I exercise but each year when I get my annual checkup the Cholesterol and Triglycerides sneak up a little more.
> ...


Whatever you do, don't go on anti-cholesterol drugs! The side effects of statins aren't worth it. Do your research before your doctor dictates what happens to your body. You need cholesterol, as the reason our bodies produce it and retain dietary cholesterol is to treat inflammation. There is lots of evidence that this inflammation is caused by carbs, sugar and omega 3/6 imbalance.

Have a look at these articles, for starters:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/there-only-one-type-cholesterol-heres-why

[SIZE=8pt]http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/10/making-sense-of-your-cholesterol-numbers.aspx[/SIZE]

[SIZE=8pt]http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/20/the-truth-about-statin-drugs-revealed.aspx[/SIZE]

I have changed my eating habits in tune with Nora Gedgaudas' approach (see www.primalbody-primalmind.com and get the book), but I am not religious about it - I have lapses, but try to minimise them  . Basically I have cut out most carbs (no potato, rice, bread, cereal, pasta etc) and minimise sugar and fruit intake. I eat moderate amounts of red and white meat, fat, lots of vegies, fish and krill oil. I try for 3 AFDs a week, and have changed the WAY I excercise - eg, I used to go for a 25 min jog 2-3 times a week, but now I do 10-15 mins high intensity interval training (30 secs on, 90secs off x 6-8). Since I started this approach in January this year, I have dropped from 98kg to 85kg (thats right - 13kgs in 18 weeks). I feel great, don't get cravings, sleep better, sweat less, feel more alert and have had to get a new wardrobe. I'm still losing about a kilo a fortnight, so I don't know where it will end..... and i still drink plenty of beer, wine and whiskey! :chug:
Cheers - Snow.


----------



## Dave70 (15/5/13)

Snow said:


> Whatever you do, don't go on anti-cholesterol drugs! The side effects of statins aren't worth it. Do your research before your doctor dictates what happens to your body. You need cholesterol, as the reason our bodies produce it and retain dietary cholesterol is to treat inflammation. There is lots of evidence that this inflammation is caused by carbs, sugar and omega 3/6 imbalance.
> 
> Have a look at these articles, for starters:
> http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/there-only-one-type-cholesterol-heres-why
> ...



All the cholesterol your body need s comes via the liver, not the diet. This is the same flawed logic many paleo fans seem to buy into.

My LDL was on the high side last year and I brought it back into range simply by eating _less_ red meat - contrary to what many advocates would have you believe.


What get's my back up about this whole paleo movement, raw foodisim - or _any_ exclusionary eating plan is not only how they hijack common sense, but make promises they cant deliver.
Overwhelmingly, hereditary factors are the main driver in longevity, regardless of your diet or bad habit's. If you had half a dozen blood relatives die in their forties from heart disease, chances are you wont be blowing out the candles on your 100th birthday cake either no matter how clean you live. The book hucksters know this, yet continually use it as a selling point.
I guarantee, for every diet plan that advocates the high fat / low carb approach, you'll find some dogmatic vegan rebutting it at every turn with his own equally compelling assertions, men in lab coats and wacky ancestral studies. 


You want to know what our ancestors _really_ ate? **** all. They were lucky not to starve most of the time and probably died from rotten teeth at 25.



Not having a shot at you Snow, just using your post as a springboard to rant from.


----------



## Airgead (15/5/13)

The archaeologists tell us that our ancestors probably ate relatively little meat and lots of things like grain, nuts, fruits and tubers. Particularly tubers. lots and lots of tubers. When, as Dave70 said, they had anything to eat at all. We like to think of ourselves as manly hunters bringing down bison and mammoths at will. But in reality - tubers and fruits with occasional meat when someone got lucky.

I find it amusing that so many paleo diet fans cut out carbs and eat heaps of meat.

Unless you are an eskimo that isn't paleolithic at all. And if you are an eskimo then most of the meat you are eating is raw whale and seal fat. Apparently its the eating it raw that makes it not so bad for you. That and living at minus 20. And pushing a sled across miles of snow and ice every day.

Cheers
Dave


----------



## Snow (15/5/13)

Dave70 said:


> All the cholesterol your body need s comes via the liver, not the diet. This is the same flawed logic many paleo fans seem to buy into.
> 
> My LDL was on the high side last year and I brought it back into range simply by eating _less_ red meat - contrary to what many advocates would have you believe.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. The info i have been reading is that our liver doesn't produce nearly enough cholesterol to do the job, and that we definitely need dietary cholesterol as well. However, my main intended point I was trying to get across is that Cholesterol is good for you - it carries antioxidants to your cells to repair inflammation. eliminating cholesterol with man-made drugs is treating the symptom and not the cause.

I don't want to get into un-referenced arguments about what our ancestors really ate (cause I don't have any references with me and can't be arsed chasing them up), but my understanding from general reading on the subject is that some of our ancestors ate lots, some ate not much but high in nutrients, some had fairly homogenous diets and some had highly omnivorous diets. It is thought that this is now manifested in different races of people who have different reactions to different types of food at a cellular level. I certainly don't advocate that one diet (my current one) would be suitable or beneficial to everyone - just that it seems to be working well for me.


----------



## Midnight Brew (15/5/13)

The problem with the western diet is there are too many processed foods available and lack of raw foods. Fats taste awesome and they are meant to because in the way back years of early humans we evolved to love carbs/fats to store in our body to provide energy during winter when food was harder to come by. It pretty much explains why fasting is a normal function. I am not a nutritonist or dietition but they would not recommend fasting to anyone as we're civilised and have access to sustainable food sources. What I take away from it all is eating food in its raw state (fruits, vegatables, grains, nuts, seeds, herbs, salads) is that you can eat what ever amount you desire of these foods as their benefits far outway their negatives. Except if you were diabetic. You wouldnt go crazy on the fruit but you could still eat it as the fiber in the fruit will slow the release of natural sugars stored.

It is in the end all down to choice/preference with lifestyle in general eg eating fast food, drinking, exercising, sticking needles into your arm,pissing on public toilet seats and taking vitamin supplements.


----------



## Snow (15/5/13)

Airgead said:


> The archaeologists tell us that our ancestors probably ate relatively little meat and lots of things like grain, nuts, fruits and tubers. Particularly tubers. lots and lots of tubers. When, as Dave70 said, they had anything to eat at all. We like to think of ourselves as manly hunters bringing down bison and mammoths at will. But in reality - tubers and fruits with occasional meat when someone got lucky.
> 
> I find it amusing that so many paleo diet fans cut out carbs and eat heaps of meat.
> 
> ...


You're probably right, but of course back then those tubers were nothing like the selectively bred, scientifically modified, massive, high starch tubers (potatoes, etc) that we buy in the supermarkets now. a million years ago, those tubers would most likely have been mostly insoluble fibre with little nutrient value.

I found the paleo diet stuff pretty amusing myself until I started reading about lots of diets, nutrition, biological processes, etc. Then I realised that a fair bit (not all) of what they were saying started making sense. The sort of food choices I make doesn't cut out all carbs (there are carbs in veges, dairy, nuts, etc), but they do minimise carbs that are easily turned to sugar that my body uses as fuel before it uses protein and fat as fuel. This is why the "diet" is working for me and why I am no longer pre-diabetic from blood sugar/insulin spikes due to carb-based sugar (I never ate sweets or drank soft drink).

Your comments about eskimoes seem strange. Are you saying Inuit people don't cook their whale and seal food? I've seen a few docos showing them cooking and smoking all their whale, seal and bear meat and fat. Studies have shown that they are extremely healthy with that kind of diet (look up the Weston A Price studies of indigenous communities). it's the ones in communities that have been introduced to "westernised" foods that are showing all the "western" diseases.

Cheers - Snow.


----------



## bum (15/5/13)

Airgead said:


> with occasional meat when someone got lucky.


We chased large, skittish animals (horses, etc) to exhaustion.

Even then it was about expending more energy than you consume.


----------



## Bribie G (15/5/13)

Midnight Brew said:


> It's been about a couple of weeks, how are you travelling Bribie?


The ADF (which also meant an AFD  ) was getting a bit brutal so I've gone onto the 5:2 regime. Lost about a kilo and a half in 2 weeks which is good if I keep it up. If I can lose 3k a month that means I'll be down to my goal weight in 3 months. However according to the show (I've bought the book) the main benefit is that if you are borderline diabetic, high bad cholesterol etc it improves them significantly.

The fast days aren't so bad, we do shopping and housework and other absorbing things - first couple I just lazed around for the day and it was pretty rugged.

On the feed days I'm Paleo -ish. I don't eat grains - just drink them of course - and no processed sugar or seed oils. Of course we can't really tell what our distant ancestors ate, but several cave dwelling tribes had a nice habit of living at one end of the cave complex and crapping at the other, and large deposits of coprolite have been analyzed and indicate that they ate up to 80% meat.

I go more for eggs, fish and chicken with my main mammal being pork and lamb. All "free range" and antibiotic/hormone free if I can get them. However I do eat a lot of greens, limited fruit as modern stuff is very sugary, and tubers such as sweet potato.

The Oiling of America is an interesting read - the real question to ask is, if eating saturated fat causes heart attacks and strokes then rates of coronary heart disease should have declined sharply after the Second World War. Instead, when seed oils and margarines were adopted, rates soared.

And no it wasn't to do with "until then few people lived to heart attack age". According to my family tree, don't know about yours, but everyone lived into their 90s on butter, dripping, lard and fatty meats. That is if they avoided dying in childhood, going down the pits, fighting in 2 wars, catching diphteria or TB or any of those diseases they didn't have vaccines for, and drinking themselves to death like one of my great granddads. When I was a little kid I had more 90 year old great and great great grandmas and dads than you could point a stick at, and they all dressed in black coats and smelled like mothballs. :unsure:

"Life expectancy in the year xxxx was xx years" is quite misleading.

Edit: The Oiling of Americahttp://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/the-oiling-of-america


----------



## felten (16/5/13)

Many of our ancestors were probably cannibals as well, how come no one is trying that diet?


----------



## bum (16/5/13)

I wouldn't even drink most peoples' _beers_...


----------



## pcmfisher (16/5/13)

Snow said:


> Whatever you do, don't go on anti-cholesterol drugs! The side effects of statins aren't worth it. Do your research before your doctor dictates what happens to your body. You need cholesterol, as the reason our bodies produce it and retain dietary cholesterol is to treat inflammation. There is lots of evidence that this inflammation is caused by carbs, sugar and omega 3/6 imbalance.
> 
> Have a look at these articles, for starters:
> http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/there-only-one-type-cholesterol-heres-why
> ...



You might want to try reading some articles from credible sources rather than the ones written by Natropaths, life coaches? and Dr Mercola.


----------



## Snow (16/5/13)

pcmfisher said:


> You might want to try reading some articles from credible sources rather than the ones written by Natropaths, life coaches? and Dr Mercola.


You might want to try and be civil and acknowledge that there are plenty of sources of information out there and "credibility' is entirely subjective unless, of course, they have been backed up by independent peer-reviewed scientific studies. I have read plenty of sources from doctors, WHO, Healthy Heart Foundation, university studies, etc, in addition to the links I provided in my post. The reason I provided those links is that they give an easy to understand explanation of what cholesterol does and doesn't do, and doesn't dumb down the message to "cholesterol bad, low fat good". The studies that Dr Mercola et al uses to base his opinions on are entirely "credible" and have been backed by peer-reviewed duplicate studies. Besides, why do you assume a naturopath can't summarise scientific facts in easy-to-read accessible articles?


----------



## pcmfisher (16/5/13)

Snow said:


> You might want to try and be civil and acknowledge that there are plenty of sources of information out there and "credibility' is entirely subjective unless, of course, they have been backed up by independent peer-reviewed scientific studies. I have read plenty of sources from doctors, WHO, Healthy Heart Foundation, university studies, etc, in addition to the links I provided in my post. The reason I provided those links is that they give an easy to understand explanation of what cholesterol does and doesn't do, and doesn't dumb down the message to "cholesterol bad, low fat good". The studies that Dr Mercola et al uses to base his opinions on are entirely "credible" and have been backed by peer-reviewed duplicate studies. Besides, why do you assume a naturopath can't summarise scientific facts in easy-to-read accessible articles?



The woman that wrote the linked Greenmedinfo article is Heidi Stevenson. A quick google of her credentials shows she produces http://www.gaia-health.com/. Have a look at the site and tell me if she is someone worth listening to on anything remotely medical.
I will not be civil when it comes to bat shit crazy anti vaxing whack jobs.

Also, I am not interested in Dr Mercola's "opinions"? His summing up of




> For the majority of you reading this right now, there's no reason to risk your health with cholesterol-lowering drugs. With the plan I've just outlined, you'll achieve the cholesterol levels you were meant to have, along with the very welcome "side effects" of increased energy, mood and mental clarity.
> Too good to be true?
> Hardly.
> For the vast majority of people, making a few lifestyle changes causes healthy cholesterol levels to naturally occur.



is just plain rubbish.
Another quick search gives me http://www.docsopinion.com/2012/06/19/should-i-take-cholesterol-lowering-drug-2/
and a couple of publications you will find therein.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960367-5/fulltext
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692706

These are what you call credible scientific sources. Nowhere can I read -




> Whatever you do, don't go on anti-cholesterol drugs! The side effects of statins aren't worth it.




Why would you rely on a naturopath for scientific facts?


----------



## Bribie G (16/5/13)

I wouldn't rely on the Government for the food pyramid (generated by scientists, sorry did I mention Monsanto?) that's presided over the fattest generations in human history.





But then of course they are there to help us, not so?


----------



## WarmBeer (16/5/13)

felten said:


> Many of our ancestors were probably cannibals as well, how come no one is trying that diet?


----------



## bum (16/5/13)

Bribie G said:


> I wouldn't rely on the Government for the food pyramid (generated by scientists, sorry did I mention Monsanto?) that's presided over the fattest generations in human history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This has got to be the fifth time I've seen you mention this.

Has anyone EVER constructed a meal around it? It is completely irrelevant to everyone's life. It most certainly did not produce the fattest generation ever.


----------



## manticle (16/5/13)

Eat less (smaller portions). Eat less fat. Eat less processed food. Eat less snacks. Eat more fresh food. Eat more regular meals. Exercise more often. Intensify your exercise. Exercise regularly.

Odd idea I know but seems to work.

Or cut out fruit and eat loads of red meat. I know which one makes sense to me.


----------



## GuyQLD (16/5/13)

I read the entirety of http://www.docsopinion.com/2012/06/19/should-i-take-cholesterol-lowering-drug-2/ And..... the comments... As bad as Youtube.


----------



## Bribie G (17/5/13)

manticle said:


> Eat less (smaller portions). Eat less fat. Eat less processed food. Eat less snacks. Eat more fresh food. Eat more regular meals. Exercise more often. Intensify your exercise. Exercise regularly.
> 
> Odd idea I know but seems to work.
> 
> Or cut out fruit and eat loads of red meat. I know which one makes sense to me.


Works for you

So don't tell the relatively few on the forum, tell it to the billion people on the planet who aren't as disciplined and wise as you are. As for eating less fat, I think you have totally missed the point. Anyway I'm not going to post on this thread again, I'll start a blog with updates.


----------



## manticle (17/5/13)

How is eating better any less difficult than not eating for an entire day? followed by having 3 portions of chips + 1 egg and a wafer every tuesday but only one mandarin every alternate month?

Works for loads of people Bribie and has very simple science behind it.

Eat less fat is obviously very simplistic and there are good and 'bad' fats but beyond that, the above is pretty straight forward. Of course it requires effort but what doesn't? I'm surprised to see you falling for faddish type stuff bribie but I hope it works for you regardless.

Next you'll be telling me you want to change your name to Alistair.


----------



## matho (17/5/13)

Manticle, I have done exactly that, eat less Kj and exercise more. I have been doing that since the end of feburay and have gone from 98kg to 80 kg and my resting heart rate has gone from 80 bpm down to 60 bpm. I ride my bike for at least 25 min a night (living in the mountains it gives you quite a work out) and I stay away from fried foods. I still have a little further to go in the weight loss but not far now.


----------



## joshuahardie (17/5/13)

Bribie G said:


> The "eat less" advisors are a bit like me saying "give up smoking, it's dead easy".


But sadly it is the truth. Gotta eat less.

I have half heartedly tried to lose weight for years. Tried a few gimmicks, tried to over compensate for the food I ate with more exercise, and even tried not drinking. 
Nothing really had an affect.

It was not the quality of the food that I was eating, I was eating quite healthy, but the proportions were too large.




mikec said:


> I used an iphone app called Myfitnesspal, which helps you keep track of your calories and exercise and your goals. Don't have an iphone? Just use the website.


Like Mike C, I was put onto MyFitnessPal, which does nore care to much for fat and sugar values, but is based on overall calorie intake. Despite my sckeptisicm, calorie counting really made me accountable for the quality and quantity of the food I put in my mouth, and like Matho I am averaging about 25 mins of exercise 4-5 times a week. It is not like I am missing out on food, but swapping out high calorie versions of food for low calorie versions of the same thing.

I am down 7 kilos this year, and I hope I can push through and get rid of a couple more. I have not had a checkup to see if the ol' insides are any better, but I have taken almost 3 inches off my waist. 

Go ahead and let us know how the fasting diet works, but it just seems like another fad to me.


----------



## manticle (17/5/13)

> Manticle, I have done exactly that, eat less Kj and exercise more. I have been doing that since the end of feburay and have gone from 98kg to 80 kg and my resting heart rate has gone from 80 bpm down to 60 bpm. I ride my bike for at least 25 min a night (living in the mountains it gives you quite a work out) and I stay away from fried foods. I still have a little further to go in the weight loss but not far now.


Got a mate who is a fellow brewer who was a reasonably hefty size when I met him. More recently we started playing futsal together - play weekly and train weekly. As a result of that his diet changed drastically and his exercise regime now includes riding a push bike and more importantly - weight training.

He's dropped over 30 kg in around 8 months and as a result is happier, fitter, more co-ordinated and looks much healthier.

One anecdote doesn't make a truth but there's more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that the right combination of eating the right things, regularly in appropriate portions and exercising regularly with some intensity leads to long term weight loss and health benefits.

No skin off my nose if people want to base their diet around that of a homo-erectus or a 12th century eskimo or eat pancakes on the eighth of every month, alternating between jam and marmalade every third round and if it works for you then go for it. It just seems like a massive overcomplication of a fairly simple equation. Yes there are things that make it more complicated like genetics, metabolic rates, etc but starving for a week, then eating cos lettuce on fridays and praline icecream on Sundays doesn't really seem like it's going to circumvent any of this.


----------



## Airgead (17/5/13)

There is a teeny, tiny bit of very early speculative science that might show that intermittent fasting might just maybe have a positive effect on insulinlike growth factors. Maybe. And the same research shows that high protein diets are bad for IGF levels. And it specifically says that its not about losing weight but about cancer prevention (not that that's a bad thing), diabetes and other stuff.

There was a good article on it in New Scientist a few months back. I'll post the text below. If you have access to their site it has links to some of the primary sources.

I might wait a little while until someone actually shows that it works. In the mean time -

Eat Food
Not too Much
Mostly vegetables

or even simpler

Eat less
Move more.

*************************************************************************************************************************
For a healthier body and mind, forget food fads and try the age-old practice of going without

THERE'S a fuzz in my brain and an ache in my gut. My legs are leaden and my eyesight is blurry. But I have only myself to blame. Besides, I have been assured that these symptoms will pass. Between 10 days and three weeks from now, my body will adjust to the new regime, which entails fasting for two days each week. In the meantime, I just need to keep my eyes on the prize. Forget breakfast and second breakfast, ignore the call of multiple afternoon snacks, because the pay offs of doing without could be enormous.

Fasting is most commonly associated with religious observation. It is the fourth of the Five Pillars of Islam. Buddhists consider it a means to practise self-control and advocate abstaining from food after the noon meal. For some Christians, temporary fasts are seen as a way of getting closer to God. But the benefits I am hoping for are more corporeal.

The idea that fasting might be good for your health has a long, if questionable, history. Back in 1908, "Dr" Linda Hazzard, an American with some training as a nurse, published a book called Fasting for the Cure of Disease, which claimed that minimal food was the route to recovery from a variety of illnesses including cancer. Hazzard was jailed after one of her patients died of starvation. But what if she was, at least partly, right?

A new surge of interest in fasting suggests that it might indeed help people with cancer. It could also reduce the risk of developing cancer, guard against diabetes and heart disease, help control asthma and even stave off Parkinson's disease and dementia. Many of the scientists who study fasting practise what they research, and they tell me that at my age (39) it could be vital that I start now. "We know from animal models," says Mark Mattson at the US National Institute on Aging, "that if we start an intermittent fasting diet at what would be the equivalent of middle age in people, we can delay the onset of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's." Surely it's worth a try?

Until recently, most studies linking diet with health and longevity focused on calorie restriction. They have had some impressive results, with the lifespan of various lab animals lengthened by up to 50 per cent after their daily calorie intake was cut in half. But these effects do not seem to extend to primates. A 23-year-long study of macaques found that although calorie restriction delayed the onset of age-related diseases, it had no impact on lifespan. So other factors such as genetics may be more important for human longevity too (Nature, vol 489, p 318).

That's bad news for anyone who has gone hungry for decades in the hope of living longer, but the finding has not deterred fasting researchers. They point out that although fasting obviously involves cutting calories - at least on the fast days - it brings about biochemical and physiological changes that daily dieting does not. Besides, calorie restriction may leave people susceptible to infections and biological stress, whereas fasting, done properly, should not. Some even argue that we are evolutionarily adapted to going without food intermittently. "The evidence is pretty strong that our ancestors did not eat three meals a day plus snacks," says Mattson. "Our genes are geared to being able to cope with periods of no food."

*What's in a fast?*

As I sit here, hungry, it certainly doesn't feel like that. But researchers do agree that fasting will leave you feeling crummy in the short term because it takes time for your body to break psychological and biological habits. Less reassuring is their lack of agreement on what fasting entails. I have opted for the "5:2" diet, which allows me 600 calories in a single meal on each of two weekly "fast" days. The normal recommended intake is about 2000 calories for a woman and 2500 for a man, and I am allowed to eat whatever I want on the five non-fast days, underlining the fact that fasting is not necessarily about losing weight. A more draconian regimen has similar restricted-calorie "fasts" every other day. Then there's total fasting, in which participants go without food for anything from one to five days - longer than about a week is considered potentially dangerous. Fasting might be a one-off, or repeated weekly or monthly.

Different regimens have different effects on the body. A fast is considered to start about 10 to 12 hours after a meal, when you have used up all the available glucose in your blood and start converting glycogen stored in liver and muscle cells into glucose to use for energy. If the fast continues, there is a gradual move towards breaking down stored body fat, and the liver produces "ketone bodies" - short molecules that are by-products of the breakdown of fatty acids. These can be used by the brain as fuel. This process is in full swing three to four days into a fast. Various hormones are also affected. For example, production of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), drops early and reaches very low levels by day three or four. It is similar in structure to insulin, which also becomes scarcer with fasting, and high levels of both have been linked to cancer.

When it comes to treating cancer, Valter Longo, director of the Longevity Institute at the University of Southern California, thinks that short-term complete fasts maximise the benefits. He has found that a 48-hour total fast slowed the growth of five of eight types of cancer in mice, the effect tending to be more pronounced the more fasts the animals undertook (Science Translational Medicine, vol 4, p 124ra27). Fasting is harder on cancer cells than on normal cells, he says. That's because the mutations that cause cancer lead to rapid growth under the physiological conditions in which they arose, but they can be at a disadvantage when conditions changes. This could also explain why fasting combined with conventional cancer treatment provides a double whammy. Mice with gliomas - a very aggressive cancer and the most commonly diagnosed brain tumour in people - were more than twice as likely to survive the 28-day study if they underwent a 48-hour fast at the same time as radiation therapy than those without the fast (PloS One, vol 7, p e44603).

Clinical trials assessing the impact of fasting in people with cancer are ongoing. Early results are promising, says Longo, and patients in the advanced stages of cancer, who cannot wait for the results, might find it worth discussing fasting with their oncologist.

*Less is more*

Could fasting prevent cancers developing in the first place? Evidence is scant but there are "very good reasons" why it should, says Longo. He points out that high levels of IGF-1 and glucose in the blood, and being overweight are all risk factors for cancer, and they can all be improved by fasting. Another risk factor is insulin, says Michelle Harvie at the University of Manchester, UK. Studying women whose family history puts them at high risk of developing breast cancer, she put half of them on a diet that involved cutting calories by about 25 per cent, and half on a 5:2 fast. After six months, both groups showed a reduction in blood insulin levels, but this was greater in the fasting group. Harvie's team is now analysing breast biopsies to see whether this translates to fewer of the genetic changes associated with increased cancer risk.

High insulin is also associated with type 2 diabetes, so perhaps it is no surprise that fasting shows promise here too. At the Intermountain Heart Institute in Murray, Utah, Benjamin Horne has found that a 24-hour water-only fast, once a month, raises levels of human growth hormone, which triggers the breakdown of fat for energy use, reducing insulin levels and other metabolic markers of glucose metabolism. As a result, people lost weight and their risk of getting diabetes and coronary heart disease was reduced (American Journal of Cardiology, vol 102, p 814). Alternate day fasting (with a 500-calorie lunch for women and 600-calorie one for men on fast days) has similar benefits, says Krista Varady of the University of Illinois, Chicago. She has seen improvements in people's levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, sometimes known as "bad cholesterol", and blood pressure, in volunteers eating either a low-fat or high-fat diet on "feeding" days.

For people who are overweight, any kind of intermittent fasting diet will probably help reduce the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular problems, says Mattson. In 2007, he found another benefit too. He put 10 overweight people with asthma on an alternate-day incomplete fast and found that after just a few weeks their asthma symptoms improved. Blood markers of inflammation, including C-reactive protein, also decreased, suggesting that the fast was helping to moderate their overactive immune system (Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol 42, p 665). Whether fasting would benefit people with asthma who are in the normal weight range or those with other conditions associated with an overactive immune response, remains to be seen. There is some evidence that alternate-day fasting can lower their levels of blood fat. However, Mattson suspects that when it comes to diabetes and cardiovascular disease, fasting may not be as beneficial for people of normal weight as it is for people who are overweight, simply because they are already likely to be in pretty good shape, metabolically speaking.

Mattson has, however, identified another effect of fasting that he believes can benefit everyone - it is good for the brain. "If you look at an animal that's gone without food for an entire day, it becomes more active," he says. "Fasting is a mild stressor that motivates the animal to increase activity in the brain." From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense because if you are deprived of food, your brain needs to begin working harder to help you find something to eat. His studies show that alternate-day fasting, with a single meal of about 600 calories on the fast day, can boost the production of a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor by 50 to 400 per cent, depending on the brain region. This protein is involved in the generation of new brain cells, and plays a role in learning and memory. It can also protect brain cells from the changes associated with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's (Neurobiology of Disease, vol 26, p 212). In mice engineered to develop Alzheimer's-like symptoms, alternate-day fasting begun in middle age delayed the onset of memory problems by about six months. "This is a large effect," Mattson says, perhaps equivalent to 20 years in people.

So, what about the common advice to start the day with a good breakfast? Mattson believes it is flawed, pointing out that the studies were based on schoolchildren who usually ate breakfast, meaning their poor performance could simply be due to the ill effects that occur when people begin fasting. Mattson himself skips breakfast and lunch five days a week, then has dinner and normal weekend meals with his family. Varady has tried alternate-day fasting, but she likes to eat dinner with her 18-month-old child and husband, so now keeps her food intake to within an eight hour period. Harvie, however, sounds a more cautious note for anyone thinking of giving fasting a go. "We still don't know exactly who should be fasting, how often or how many days a week," she says. Besides, it may not be without risks. One study in mice, for example, found that an alternate-day fast for six months reduced the heart's ability to pump blood (Journal of Cardiac Failure, vol 16, p 843).

There is also the fact that fasting is difficult. Varady finds that between 10 and 20 per cent of people who enrol in her studies drop out, unable to stick to the regime. This may be less of a problem in the future, though. Researchers are now investigating the possibility that you can get some of the health benefits of fasting without actually depriving yourself of food (see "Hold the protein").

As I count down the minutes to the end of my fast, I can't help wishing them success.

*********Sidebar********
*Hold the protein*

One key physiological effect of fasting is that it lowers levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1. Low levels of IGF-1 are associated with a decreased risk of cancer and increased lifespan. So if you could reduce it by, say, 70 per cent, wouldn't you? The only catch is that it takes five days without food to do this. But what if you could get the same result simply by altering your diet? Luigi Fontana at the University of Palermo, Italy, thinks it may be possible.

Suspecting that fasting per se is not what matters, Fontana compared the IGF-1 levels of members of the Calorie Restriction Society of Newport, North Carolina, with people who ate a typical western diet. There was no difference, despite the former group having severely reduced their calorie intake for an average of six years. However, IGF-1 levels among a group of strict vegans were significantly lower, even if they weighed more. The key, he believes, is protein, which accounted for just 10 per cent of calories for the vegans but about 25 per cent for the calorie-restricted group (Aging Cell, vol 7, p 681).

There is strong evidence linking high protein intake with cancer, says Fontana. For example, cancer rates increase for people who move from a low-protein Japanese diet to a relatively high-protein US diet. He is currently comparing the IGF-1 lowering potential of protein restriction with fasting.

Results are not yet in, but Fontana doesn't advocate eschewing protein altogether, just consuming the US recommended daily allowance of 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. That equates to about 10 per cent of calories from protein - in the west, protein makes up at least 16 per cent of the daily diet. The medical dogma is that lots of protein is good for you, Fontana says. "But I think it's wrong. I challenge the medical community to reconsider."

*********End Sidebar********

Emma Young is a writer based in Sheffield, UK


----------



## Dave70 (17/5/13)

Y'all can have your armchair theorists, book salesmen and food pyramids.
Or you can contemplate the advice from a man who actually kicked arse well into his 90's.

http://singularityhub.com/2011/02/16/jack-lalanne-made-longevity-a-simple-science/


----------



## RobW (17/5/13)

I've been on the 5:2 for about a month which means for 2 days a week my calorie intake is around 600, about a quarter of normal.
For the first couple of restricted days I felt hungry through the day but since then I hardly notice it.
I've lost 3-4 kilos and more importantly that fat around the middle.
I don't feel as hungry on unrestricted days and I find now I don't need to eat as much to satisfy me at mealtimes.
I don't want to lose much more and will probably go to one restricted day a week soon.
I feel better - more alert, and have more energy.
I get out of bed easier in the morning.
Also it makes it easy to have a couple of AFDs a week - something that I wouldn't usually do, and eat smaller portions which used to be difficult too.
In another month or so I will have a blood checkup and see if anything has changed there - this is what I'm really interested in.

Just out of interest how many of the naysayers out there have read the book or watched the doco?
I'd recommend it.


----------



## Airgead (17/5/13)

Not so interested in books and docos as they always have a point to push. I mean, who is going to write a book that days "Hey look at this!..umm... well.. actually.. move along.. nothing to see here".

Some peer reviewed papers from some decently sized clinical studies would be a good start. People are working on it but as the article I posted says, the science is at very early stages. There is a plausible mechanism of action through the IGF system but no actual proof that the proposed effect is real or clinically significant

Cheers
Dave.


----------



## Dave70 (17/5/13)

Legit..


----------



## bum (17/5/13)

Romantic love is in my window tonight.


----------



## emnpaul (17/5/13)

Dave70 said:


> Or you can contemplate the advice from a man who actually kicked arse well into his 90's.


Or an 83 year old Australian who never drank a beer in his life.

http://tomhafey.com.au/


----------



## bum (17/5/13)

**** that guy.

10 years is HEAPS.


----------



## thedragon (18/5/13)

Two days is heaps


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (19/5/13)

There is a really good government sponsored plan for weight loss. Its called Newstart. And its very effective. The idea behind it is you can only afford a small amount of food which has to be portioned over 2weeks. Along with that comes an exercise incentive called walking everywhere cause you can't afford a car or bus/train/taxi fares. I have been on it for a while and have yet to gain any weight at all.


----------



## Dave70 (21/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> There is a really good government sponsored plan for weight loss. Its called Newstart. And its very effective. The idea behind it is you can only afford a small amount of food which has to be portioned over 2weeks. Along with that comes an exercise incentive called walking everywhere cause you can't afford a car or bus/train/taxi fares. I have been on it for a while and have yet to gain any weight at all.


Results really _do _​vary don't they.

I see plenty of folks in hanging about the local shopping centers here who are apparently thriving on government sponsored programs judging by the girth of the women and the five or so children they have in tow.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (21/5/13)

Good point. The centerlink diet is ideally aimed at singles with no kids


----------



## RobW (19/6/13)

Well the results are in.
I had my blood tests this week after 7 weeks of fasting (600 cal max) twice a week.

I've lost about 6 kg (mostly fat around the guts) *but more importantly my previously elevated cholesterol, triglycerides and glucose have come back to the normal range*.

And in that time I have hardly exercised.

I don't want to lose any more weight so will be cutting the fast days back to once a week.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (19/6/13)

Good to hear, RobW. SWMBO and I have started it this week, mainly to counterbalance our typically indulgent weekends.


----------



## Dave70 (19/6/13)

RobW said:


> Well the results are in.
> I had my blood tests this week after 7 weeks of fasting (600 cal max) twice a week.
> 
> I've lost about 6 kg (mostly fat around the guts) *but more importantly my previously elevated cholesterol, triglycerides and glucose have come back to the normal range*.
> ...


Out of curiosity Rob, did you change your regular diet on non fasting days?


----------



## RobW (19/6/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> Good to hear, RobW. SWMBO and I have started it this week, mainly to counterbalance our typically indulgent weekends.


Good luck with it.
The first couple of days can be a challenge but you will be happy with the results.


----------



## RobW (19/6/13)

Dave70 said:


> Out of curiosity Rob, did you change your regular diet on non fasting days?


No, not at all (and I do enjoy my food!) although I feel like now it doesn't take as much to feel satisfied.

On the morning after a fast I never feel particularly hungry just have a normal breakfast.
It seems somehow like you just get used to it.

The other thing is that by watching your calorie intake you get a better idea of the energy value of different foods so maybe subconsciously you accommodate that.


----------

