The FastDay Forum

Depends on what's motivating you.

If you want to fast for spiritual, health/well-being and/or for longer, go on a retreat. If you want to lose weight then this is good and very sustainable. Any other benefits are a bonus.

Technically, over a week, it's not even an extreme calorie restriction. Much less than the usual daily restriction that is common on SW or WW diets.

[carorees]

There is evidence however that this diet does do things that simple calorie restriction does not do: more of the weight lost is fat, the appetite is reduced so daily hunger is not an issue, sugar cravings are reduced, it fits into a persons lifestyle better such that social occasions are less of a trial.

It's much easier for me to eat much less some days than a bit less every day for 2 years, to lose the amount of weight I should.

I'm not going to worry about the other benefits (though balance and cognitive things seem to be better) because the excess weight is a higher risk than anything else.

HEAR HEAR!!!

There is evidence however that this diet does do things that simple calorie restriction does not do: more of the weight lost is fat, the appetite is reduced so daily hunger is not an issue, sugar cravings are reduced, it fits into a persons lifestyle better such that social occasions are less of a trial.

HEAR HEAR AGAIN!!!

I think there is enough evidence, both scientific and anecdotal (on here) that this is a workable way to reduce weight and feel healthier. The longer term benefits may be a bonus, but I need to lose another 10 kilos or so. Having lost 5Kg so far doing this and noticing a lot of other benefits, like more energy and sharper thinking at work, I am not in any doubt at all that this WOE is fantastic for me and I will do it for the rest of my life. My advice to people is to just try it and see for yourself..... Don't overthink it!

Do you find it easier to only eat 500 calories 2 days a week then just cutting your calories 200-300 calories a day?

For me, the answer is yes. Only counting calories two days a week is much easier than 7. Also, the idea that I can eat normally most of the time is comforting.

But, perhaps more to the point, it is possible that the body reacts differently to IF than to mild calorie reduction on a daily basis. There is some evidence (though not nearly enough yet) that by doing IF, your body doesn't reset your metabolic rate as it does with daily calorie restriction. This is incredibly helpful if you want to continue losing weight and maintain weight loss.

Do you find it easier to only eat 500 calories 2 days a week then just cutting your calories 200-300 calories a day?

For me, the answer is yes. Only counting calories two days a week is much easier than 7. Also, the idea that I can eat normally most of the time is comforting.

But, perhaps more to the point, it is possible that the body reacts differently to IF than to mild calorie reduction on a daily basis. There is some evidence (though not nearly enough yet) that by doing IF, your body doesn't reset your metabolic rate as it does with daily calorie restriction. This is incredibly helpful if you want to continue losing weight and maintain weight loss.

Thanks. I'm on my second fasting day today. First one was pretty good, did not get really hungry until dinner time and was able to have my second meal of the day which helped.

It does seem easier to do then counting calories every day. Still have to make sure you don't overeat on non fasting days, especially if that was your norm before. It does make sense that probably over time you would subconsciously be more full will less food on non fasting days, though I seemed more hungry than normal.

I'm hopeful that IF will not slow down my metabolic rate, but I think no matter what diet your body does get used to things and evens them out.

I'm willing to try this for at least a month and see how my body handles it. I wish there was more science that would help me to determine the way i'm approaching IF will work for me (eating 300 cals @ lunch and 300 cals @ dinner) most of the research seems to be from long term fasting (3+ days) or Alternate fasting (1 fasting day, next day off) with No food on fasting days.

Hope I can get the same results as Mr Mosley (though he's really doing 72 hours of fasting or 3 days)

There's hundreds of posts here, just search the terms you want and you should find answers as everyone is doing it differently.

Think you're overthinking this tho.

There's hundreds of posts here, just search the terms you want and you should find answers as everyone is doing it differently.

Think you're overthinking this tho.

I'm not over thinking it.

There are supposed benefits to fasting. I want to make sure i'm fasting
I'm not sure if 5:2 with restricted calories get you the benefits of fasting.
There are very few if any scientific studies on this way of eating.

Are you actually wanting to lose weight, fast for the other benefits or both?

You'll understand the emphasis here is mainly for weight loss and health, not purist fasting so you're probably looking for answers beyond the scope of this forum. There are no right answers as yet anyway.

Are you familiar with asceticism? Among others, ascetics do long term fasting. They don't go without food though, because obviously they would die.
So, yes, if you spend 36 hours with minimum food, you obviously fast.

Additionally to the above, it does make a lot of difference whether you are doing this to lose weight, or to get the benefits of fasting.
I want the first, so I don't care one bit about other benefits. If I get them, good, if I don't, it's OK.
If you wish the latter, then perhaps you could do a bit of research regarding fasting practices and combine it with 5:2.

I'm willing to try this for at least a month and see how my body handles it. I wish there was more science that would help me to determine the way i'm approaching IF will work for me (eating 300 cals @ lunch and 300 cals @ dinner) most of the research seems to be from long term fasting (3+ days) or Alternate fasting (1 fasting day, next day off) with No food on fasting days.

Hope I can get the same results as Mr Mosley (though he's really doing 72 hours of fasting or 3 days)

Have you seen the list of clinical trials

The 75% calorie reduction on alternate days is used in several, typically this has a single lunchtime meal which could be characterised as two periods of fasting 2100 - 1200 and 1400 - 0800. There's no evidence for picking this other than it suiting a clinical trial where volunteers are fed in a clinic at lunchtime under supervision.

Another protocol is to true fast from 22:00 to 18:00, again in part used for clinical convenience rather than because it's a demonstrable optimum.

As you'll see from my stats I am not overweight. I gave up smoking 6 months ago and started eating rubbish and put on half a stone - which I want now to lose. I also want to re-educate myself about avoiding the calorie laden garbage that put those extra pounds on. My need to graze is definitely reduced by fasting.

BUT - my Mom has high Cholesterol and on 5:2 she's lost 2 stone and obliterated her cholesterol problem. Not bad for a 76 year old.

So I'm influenced by thinking longer term 5:2 might prevent me from having similar Cholesterol problems. It certainly can't hurt.

Have you seen the list of clinical trials

The 75% calorie reduction on alternate days is used in several, typically this has a single lunchtime meal which could be characterised as two periods of fasting 2100 - 1200 and 1400 - 0800. There's no evidence for picking this other than it suiting a clinical trial where volunteers are fed in a clinic at lunchtime under supervision.

Another protocol is to true fast from 22:00 to 18:00, again in part used for clinical convenience rather than because it's a demonstrable optimum.

Thanks allot for this info.
the only trial thaat is based on the 5:2 diet looks very promising:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017674/

This is basicly what I am doing and it looks like these people had real results.
only thing I question is on their feeding days the could have changed their diet and ate better, but I think that happens to really anyone on a diet.
Thanks again, great info!

There is evidence however that this diet does do things that simple calorie restriction does not do: more of the weight lost is fat, the appetite is reduced so daily hunger is not an issue, sugar cravings are reduced, it fits into a persons lifestyle better such that social occasions are less of a trial.

What's the evidence for this?