We have not had a 5:2 thread in AGES!
As usual, post your 500 calorie meals and success stories.
>>7433451
>success stories.
>fad diets
are you actually this fucking moronic or are you only pretending?
>>7433451
5:2 a shit, 4:3 superior
But anyway I've been thinking of rolling sheets of nori into tight sticks to snack on. Only 5 calories a stick and nice trace mineral contents.
>>7433451
>Fatties eating only 1000 calories a day when they're used to 3000+
Yeah, that'll work.
>>7433644
Its only 500 calories actually but its only twiced a week.
>>7433451
why not just fast for 1 day a week then?
>>7433662
Or just eat a caloric deficit 7 days a week?
>>7433662
or why not realize you're a fat fuck and eat less everyday and slowly build towards healthy eating habits?
don't talk with them and don't question them. a person being fat is a physical symptom of retardation
>>7433654
If you're eating above 0 calories it is not a fast.
>>7433729
Saliva has calories , so you cant ever fast
>>7433669
Because the human body runs way better when it goes hungry a few times a week.
This is how most animals experience life anyway.
Steady food is not normal or healthy.
>>7433761
Saliva is secreted by your body, so where do you think those calories come from?
>>7433767
the government
>>7433451
I have been eating 2000 cal/day and I am not hungry and hvae steadily been losing weight.
>>7433654
Hey! How're you going on 5:2? Or were you also doing keto?
>>7433762
>Steady food is not normal or healthy.
Okay fatty. Just because you can't control yourself doesn't mean that regularly eating is a bad idea.
The problem comes when you have a steady supply of too much food. The solution to this is not fasting. The solution is to stop being such a fat fuck.
>>7433762
It is, actually. Humans are not "feast or famine" feeders like most predators; we are roamers and gatherers. Nomads at heart. We were meant to wander around and snack all day, so a steady stream of calories is our natural state. When civilization started. it became too difficult to eat all day, so instead meal times to divide up the day became a trend and has endured since then.
>>7434697
>Humans are not "feast or famine" feeders like most predators; we are roamers and gatherers. Nomads at heart. We were meant to wander around and snack all day
Completely false.
>>7436093
oh ok
>>7436093
>We were meant to wander around and snack all day
Is that how fat people justify snacking?
>>7436154
Its fatty logic from the turn of the century
>>7433762
>Because the human body runs way better when it goes hungry a few times a week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response
>>7437678
Good lord, I don't advocate prolonged fasting personally but starvation mode is absolutely a fuckin meme. No one uses it correctly. It only occurs in cases of serious, consistent, longterm starvation. Not eating for 15 hours or skipping a meal or eating a large deficient for a couple days will not put you in starvation mode. First recorded drop in metabolism in response to fasting occurred after ~60 hours. That's almost 3 days of NO food whatsoever. It's just a slight drop too.
There are a ton of studies showing the benefits of low calorie diets and temporary fasting (ala IF), but I don't feel like getting into that now. 5:2 will not put you in starvation mode unless you heavily restrict on all days of it, for 6+ months at a time consistently. Even alternate full day fasting will not drop metabolism or induce any of the physiological effects of starvation assuming you get sufficient calories on a weekly basis.
Besides, with obesity rates rising significantly in first world countries, it wouldn't hurt the avg person to go hungry maybe more than a few times a week.
>>7437768
or you could eat properly? no, no of course you can't. that's simply unreasonable, isn't it? Yes it is unreasonable! Our bodies are only human afterall and they require at least 1 gallon of milk per day and constant snacking! Everyone knows this! It's much better, as a weightloss strategy to not eat anything for a day. I mean how else do people possible weigh under 300 pounds without being anorexic? It's literally impossible and I even looked it up on the USDA website. Yes the only way to live a healthy lifestyle is to intermittently starve oneself. All those skinny people walking around must only eat one day a week! They're the fucked up ones, if you ask me! Eating only once a week can't possible be good for one's health... It's truly absurd; the times we live in! As that earlier poster stated (in his factual post) we humans were much better fed before civilization developed as we were free to wander and snack all day as nature intended. Goddamn this evil evil society and civilization (black lives matter, by the way). But nowadays it's really tough to wander because there are buildings and danger everywhere outside in these big evil civilization cities so it's much more health to get a job where we sit inside all day. And, obviously, we need to drive to work because these cities created by civilization are too big. Driving is essentially wandering and experts agree with that, look it up if you don't believe me, I read that there were studies done on the subject! Be sure to sit inside at your computer too. This isn't unhealthy as we are perfectly free to wander around in the virtual world (which is essential the same as wandering in the real world).
Yes truly the healthiest way to live is to starve your body every couple of days.
>>7437780
>or you could eat properly?
fasting is eating properly. humans are not grazers
>tfw diabetic since I was 10 for no reason
>slightly underweight
>can't skip meals or I pass out
>>7437780
Holy fuck you got mad. The other anon is right, if you've already become over weight for whatever reason, fasting is a fantastic way to lose weight. Take some time, look into to studies with valid methods, and discover that fasting has been shown to even slightly extend life span. It also helps stomachs shrink back into a more normal size. It also helps people build up self control. It works very, very well combined with exercise. I went from 230 to 125 with intermittent fasting when I was 14 to 15. It's allowed me to go from have a terrible relationship with food as a child to being able to have a normal, healthy relationship as an adult.
Once you calm down from your rage against society maybe you'll see that fasting has its place.
>>7437992
Then why would you want to fast in the first place? We're you looking for pity with that comment?
>>7438063
He doesn't. He's saying he can't fast for the reason listed.
>>7437992
You are lucky to be alive at all
by 5:2 does this imply merely 1000 calories a day? sorry that I actually have some height and muscle mass behind me so I can't possibly justify this fad shit. even if i was short and small I'd rather not starve myself and feel like crap, who the fuck cares about living if you can't enjoy life.
>>7439162
it's 500 calories twiced a week.
delayed gratification
>>7437678
As long as you have excess body fat you are absolutely not in starvation mode.
Your body doesn't go to the trouble of storing fat just for the fuck of it.
I'm on day 10 of a 14 days water fast and I gotta say, I feel fucking fantastic.
I'm not even hungry, have plenty of energy, my mind is clear. Seriously consider taking it out to 21 day, cause at this point it's just completely smooth sailing.
Also 30 lbs down already! A good chunk of that is water weight of course, but still.... What other diet can sustain ~1lb per day of fat loss?!
>meme diets
>DUDE STARVE YOURSELF TWO DAYS LMAO
LMAO POSTMILLENIALS
NOW I'VE FUCKING SEEN IT ALL
>Starvation mode
more like starvation meme
apart from pubmed literally nobody on the internet has EVER EVER EVER used the term correctly
neck yourselves
oh wait you're so fat you'd break the rope
this is literally the most austistic thread literally ever
>>7439231
A good chunk of that will also be muscle mass pleb.
Good job cucking yourself.
Eat some fucking good.
>>7439700
>A good chunk of that will also be muscle mass pleb.
No, no it won't. Do some reading (actual reading as in scientific journals not retarded housewife blogs) before you spout "common sense" lies.
Your body absolutely does not burn large amounts of muscle when you're fasting, so long as you have plenty of body fat. To do otherwise is downright retarded. I'm still working out throughout and am having no issues.
Honestly it's no different than keto, except your burning your own body fat instead of dietary fat.
>inb4 you're a retarded /fit/ fag that thinks your muscles will deflate if you don't eat 10lbs of protein every single day
>>7436093
Okay, moron. We are build for endurance; to walk/jog long distances. Roam, if you will. It's how we hunted, and how we lived for thousands of years. But you can play denial with science and history all you want; people do it all the time.
>>7436154
No fat people are fat because they are shitty people with no self control and no discipline who use food to comfort themselves when they experience adversity. Has little to do with historical man, since if you were that weak back then you died. Go ahead and call me out on edge but that's the long and the short of it.
>>7433451
>the mentally ill retards that used to post these threads came back
i hoped you fucking degenerates died out already, can you seriously take your illness to another place, fucking retards holy shit
Thank you hungry skeleton.
>>7439747
Fuck off douche nozzle.
I am talking from personal experience here, but whatever, Im arguing with someone that thinks its a good idea to not eat for 3 weeks so I shouldnt expect much anyway.
>>7439231
>has 30lbs of fat to lose
>knows about nutrition
pick on fat arse
If you honestly want to lose weight you should check out the proana forums. Those girls are hard core.
>>7439762
yes we roam,
no we did not snack constantly.
there were long stretches between food sources.
you are an idiot.
I went from eating about 3500 calories a day at the end of 2014 to barely 1000 cals starting March 2015. I lost 55 lbs last year doing zero exercise whatsoever and never once felt like I was depriving myself. in fact I felt absolutely fantastic and proud of myself.
>only 70 kg
>get candy bar once a week
>feel like I have no self control
>pledge to never eat candy again
It's a cruel cycle
>fad dieting aka how I developed a bulimia, destroyed every aspect of my life (also fucked digestive system and teeth) and became suicidal
Maybe it's only me that I was too weak, anons.
>>7433654
>fatties starve themselves for 2 days and then "reward" themselves with pizza and cheesecake for the rest of the week and expect to lose weight.
fad diets all have the same problem, that being that being a fat piece of shit is a mindset. Until you address that mindset head on, you will never lose weight.
>>7438059
>It also helps stomachs shrink back into a more normal size.
or you could eat properly
ITT: fact fucks who go on fad diets and try to lose weight
this thread is further proof that fat people are idiots
>>7440197
Yes, we did. Wherever you found a food source, you ate a little then stowed some or shared it with the group. You did this all day.
Discovery channel nigger. Watch it. Peer-reviewed papers. Read them. Educate yourself. Or stay 4chan ignorant the rest of your sad life.
>>7436154
sweet
>>7439231
why the fuck are you on ck/ when on a 3 weeks fast? Is it just for the kick of seeing what you don't allow yourself?
Honestly you sound like a fuckin psycho
>>7439231
>1 lb a day weight loss
Medically shown time and time again to be unhealthy as fuck. If it's water weight, fine, but actual weight? You're killing yourself.
>>7440928
if you think early humans never went hungry ,you are a complete idiot.
>>7439747
ok.
I hope that we're wrong and you turn out to meet your goals, anon, I really do.
>>7440213
Proud of you anon!
Is it all high protein/carbs/fat low carbs or do you eat sugary shit as well?
I want to combine 5:2 with gomad and just drink milk for two days a week.
will this work?
>>7441156
I'm not sure I follow. How are you going to fit a gallon of milk in 500kcal. Also, do you even understand what the use of gomad is, because it's not intended for weight loss anon-kun.
>>7440213
1000 cal / day is pretty low
>>7441170
gomad is fore buliking you fucking idiot
>>7433451
>meme diets
Literally cancer.
I'm not trying to pick a fight and I think this thread is pretty hilarious, but it seems everyone agrees that being fat means you're stupid. Am I the only one getting self-loathing/body dysmorphia vibes from these comments?
Personally, I'm happy to carry a little extra weight in the name of hedonism. Minor health risks never stopped me from enjoying other activities like drugs or sex, so why should they stop me from enjoying food?
>>7441301
I agree with your core message, but you're ignoring the fact that it's possible to eat fun foods without becoming an amorphous blob.
>before you respond to that statement, take a moment to recognize that it's a hyperbole, you pedantic pricks.
That said, a lot of fatties are fat because they are retarded about diet, fitness and health in general. You know the ones:
The ones that fall for meme diets but never manage to lose weight for longer than a day. The ones that go on week long water fasts because the diet has become the goal, so happiness and health are tossed by the wayside.
I really don't understand it, tbqh. Is it a widespread lack of factual knowledge about nutrition, culture-wide loss of discipline, or something else. I'm stumped, man.
>>7441336
that is because nutrition science is very primitive.
they are just now telling us we can eat all the eggs we want again.
turns out the were totally wrong about cholesterol.
>>7441603
calories in calories out is pretty solid though, and has been for a long time. I think that's the one most dieters should care the most about.
>>7441723
Haters gonna hate, but there might be something else behind obesity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0
There are six part to the lecture and the shortest summary would be:
By eating to many "fattening" carbs you raise you insulin level. Due to constant snacking, your insulin levels stay high, which can lead to insulin resistance, therefore increasing furthemore your insulin level, which will in turn feed your insulin resistance ect ect...
Your insulin level acts as a "set point" for your body weight, the higher it is, the higher your TDEE will adapt (in this case, lower itself) in order to get you to a higher weight.
It would appear that the underlying cause for obesity would be insulin and not a simple problem of calories in - calories out.
>>7441723
that probably works if you're a 400 pound ham planet trying to remove a truck tire's worth of lard while counting a 20 minute daily walk as "exercise", but as someone who cycles hundreds of miles a week and lifts twice a week, shaving a couple of pounds without crippling loss of performance is about artfully balancing macro ratios as much as it is about counting calories. getting enough protein is critical too.
t. a guy trying to drop get rid of a couple of pounds
>>7441831
I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to get across here though.
If this is still related to balancing tasty food and general health I'm not really seeing it.
Unless your cycling performance and sub-10 body fat are requirements for happiness for you, more than eating tasty foods.
But that would probably you an exception, and is at best tangentially related.
>>7441804
I'll have a look. But the way you explain it still doesn't invalidate calories in, calories out for weight loss, but rather it tweaks the factors that play a role in calories out.
>>7441973
the point I am trying to get across to you is that "dieters" is a pretty broad term and everyone has their own goals. for you it might be being a softbody who pretty much looks alright in a hoodie and jeans and doesn't think too hard about what he eats. for another person it might be being at the peak of physical condition. neither of those goals is incompatible with eating "tasty food" or "happiness" or whatever other weird proxies for "inhaling 2 crates of krispy kreme per day and nothing else because lolcaloriesincaloriesout".
the point is, calories in/calories out is actually a lot less useful than you think. it seems to work for you because actually paying attention conflicts with your agenda which is that "healthism" is somehow a cancer that ruins people's ability to enjoy food. but in reality, whatever it is that's working for you, happens to work because of a combination of luck and habits. you confused that for a good set of guidelines that works for what you erroneously think of as "most people" (i.e., people who are just like you).
>>7440945
How am I killing myself? I have plenty of body fat to burn.
Record for fasting was 382 days at a sustained 0.7 lbs/day or so of body fat and that individual not only kept it off but is (for a formerly massively obese person) perfectly healthy.
I mean it makes sense... If you're not eating your body must get energy from your fat stores. alb of fat is 3500 calories, but it takes some energy to break it down (TDE actually increases somewhat on a fast) and everything and you lose some water with it (cause my TDE certainly isn't 3500 calories lol).
I really don't see why there is anything at all unhealthy about that or that would make one equate it with killing one's self.
The fat is there for a reason. Putting it to its purpose is natural and fine.
Really the only issue with longer term fasts is vitamin and mineral deficiency which can lead to serious problems, but this can be dealt with by supplementation or drinking simple bone broth or similar. But obviously fasting is not meant to be a "permanent" diet, however going on a long 1-2 week fast on a regular basis is perfectly fine, even healthy.
>>7433640
0:7 master race reporting
>>7441336
>The ones that go on week long water fasts because the diet has become the goal, so happiness and health are tossed by the wayside.
That some people who are idiots do this does not mean that doing so makes you an idiot.
I'm the 14 day fast guy and my health is fine, I'm vital and energetic, and honestly happier than I have been in a while (stuffing your face with shit food isn't a great recipe for happiness t b h).
I've been quite fat, and I've been incredibly lean, multiple times each. My problem is that I'll get in awesome shape, look fantastic and go on to live a wild party lifestyle enjoying all the attention.. Which inevitably leads me back to being a fat ass. Last time I got in awesome shape I stayed in pretty decent shape for the following 2 years. I've only gotten as fat as I am over the past 8-9 months.
I got down to 195 or so, slowly went up to 230ish and stayed there (still pretty lean at 6'4") but stress and shit lead to me ballooning up to 315lb.
>>7441191
retard detected
>>7442011
Whoah m80, calm down a bit here.
I don't have solid number because it's not really an important scientific question, but you're trying to tell me most people following a form of not medically necessary diet are not trying to lose weight?
Or that you are some kind of thermodynamic wizard that has uncoupled weight loss from caloric intake?
Or are you perhaps mistaking calories in calories out for a comprehensive dieting plan?
I'll try to keep it as simple as possible then, so you won't come to some weird-ass conclusions again:
I think that for most people, eating tasty and being healthy are not mutually exclusive
>nutrition science is very primitive
I think nutrition science is advanced enough for most people interested in following a specific diet to reach their goals.
>that probably works if you're a 400 pound ham planet
I know calories in calories out is the rule that governs EVERY long term solid weight gain or loss (making some allowance for water weight variance and shit here), and has been known to be so for quite some time.
>you confused that for a good set of guidelines that works for what you erroneously think of as "most people" (i.e., people who are just like you).
You have confused a basic scientific observation for a set of diet guidelines, and you are making some pretty amazing assumptions about my interest in dieting.
But please do regale me with tales of how I'm a blob of lard that doesn't lift, mister world champ cycling man. :^)
>>7442034
ok.
I hope that we're wrong and you turn out to meet your goals, anon, I really do.
>>7442166
Solid post. Really contributed to the thread.
>>7442177
ok
Thanks for the (you), you valued friend of the /ck/ community you.
>>7442161
I never called you a blob of lard, I said you're a softbody, which is almost certainly true. I believe the meme word for that is "skinnyfat"
the rest of your post is basically just confusing me with a bunch of other people you argued with, and "refuting" some statements I never made.
I'm sorry you're so defensive, you made a valid contribution and you should get a gold star for that.
>>7442196
Yeah I noticed I was losing track of who was arguing what, so I just thought I'd sum it all up in one post.
Care to point me to your post, if that's one I didn't respond to yet?
>almost certainly true
ok :^)
>>7442224
Care to cup my balls and stroke my shaft?
>>7442285
For you, anyday m8.
>>7439231
Details anon?
