The FastDay Forum

11 posts Page 1 of 1
5:2 vs 16:8
02 Jun 2013, 10:53
Hello there, I have been doing 5:2 for a number of months now but i am not losing weight at all...i think the problem might be that i dont really need the deficit calories as i dont really over eat much... my usual calorie intake is around 1200, sometimes less so 5:2 might not be making much of a difference... i was wondering if a daily 16:8 would work better for me as its a fast everyday, although it might end up making me eat less if i only have an 8 hour window to eat in, im not sure :)

nice to meet you all :)
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
02 Jun 2013, 12:21
Welcome to the forum tawnylioness! May I ask why your daily calories are so low? Have you calculated you TDEE? It may seem odd but with 5:2, it works best to eat near your TDEE on non-fast days, some days more, some days less.
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
02 Jun 2013, 14:24
Hi Tawntlioness,

I agree with Betsygr8 about your low calorie intake and there are lots of threads on here to read that can tell you more about that,in the meantime, you may wish to browse the following link ..................


but please, do address your unusually low intake.

Whatever you decide, good luck and let us know how it all goes,

Ballerina x :heart:
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
03 Jun 2013, 00:42
i naturally eat light i think, i dont starve myself, i eat when hungry.. but i guess its just not that much... i did force myself to eat up to 1700 at one point which is my tdee i think, with a bsl of 1200 ( if i got that right) but i was forcing myself to eat when i wasn't hungry and it just didn't feel right
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
03 Jun 2013, 10:40
can we have a clue about your age, height, weight, activity levels etc ?
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
04 Jun 2013, 08:27
30, female, 163cm tall, 68kg, stay at home mun, going to gym everyday for past month but still working on routine :)
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
04 Jun 2013, 09:29
How did you put on weight in the first place? Have you always eaten low calorie or is this the result of a diet prior to 5:2? If you are eating 1200 calories a day and struggling to eat more then you should, at your height and activity level, be losing a few lbs :confused:
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
07 Jun 2013, 02:37
a few years back i was 68kg, i lost some doing taekwondo and went down to 65, then i had two kids and afte the 2nd was 58 kgs... and now i put it all back on and i honestly have no idea how :( i few months ago i started calorie counting and i dabbled with eating 1700 cals and 1200 cals... neither made any difference... IF, excersise at the gym, eating a diet recomended to me by a PT... nothing seems to help... i also got my bloods checked and nothing wrong there... im very despondent about it
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
07 Jun 2013, 07:29
Hello tawnylioness
I'm not very good at this but have done some number crunching. Given your age, sex, weight and height and deciding you are probably moderately active (!) your TDEE is coming in to be 2263 cals daily.
Your BMI is slightly into the overweight category.
This suggests that you are massively under eating.
Perhaps you could look at shocking your body and really start to mix up what you are doing- 2 days 5:2 at 500 cals, maybe one or two day of 2000+ cals (if you can manage) and another 2 days of reasonable 1700ish cals.
Some of the less numerically challenged will be able to work out something more accurate but I think the need to mix up what you are doing may help.
What do you think?
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
08 Jun 2013, 01:27
could you define moderately active? i tend to assume im sedentary. i am really not sure how i could make myself eat so many cals... i eat when im hungry.. aside from fast days which last night i actually decided to give in since its not really working for me..and i figured it works best for people who perhaps need a little calorie control.... anyways... i do eat when im hungry and i still dont manage anywhere close to that amount... i dont eat low fat either :/
Re: 5:2 vs 16:8
08 Jun 2013, 07:33
There is a big list somewhere about activity levels but I have no idea what it was called or where it might be hiding!
I seem to remember that moderately active involved being on you feet about half the day, gym 3-5 times a week and a few other things. I also reckoned with having 2 children (and assumed they were quite small) you would be realtively active. Could be wrong of course, but even if you do the numbers with a sedentary option you'll be under eating.
11 posts Page 1 of 1