The FastDay Forum

I also couldn't do both a 16:8 with the 5:2. I tried it for a week or so... But I still may try a 16:8 now and then... I think the benefits are the 16 hours you don't eat... you are doing a little fast. But it made me too focused on eating, and I really want to be casual about the whole diet... and treat it like I'm not really on a diet, and really 5:2 is much more like that for me.

I have to admit I don't understand how 16/8 could lead to weight loss. I'm not against it, but just don't see why it would work for that purpose.

Me neither - although I think for weight maintenance it certainly seems to work. If I didn't like my breakfast so much I'd be doing it for maintenance rather than 6:1 ish.

Think of all the times I.n your life you have had brunch that's how I cope

I think the thing about 16/8 is that for at least 16 hours out of every 24 you are fasting and if my memory serves me right, and I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong, then after something like 14 hours without food you start to burn off fat which you will not do if you eat on a more regular basis. I understand that there is some evidence to suggest that a reduced eating window will result in weight loss whereas the same number of calories eaten over a longer time frame will not. Hope I got all that correct and that it helps make it clearer why it can work.

On a personal note I have the most spectacular blow-outs on a regular basis and am still below my target weight. The end result is that all I have done is revert to my younger eating habits when I was slim and before I was nagged to 'eat a healthy breakfast to set you up for the day' when the reality over the years has been that 'a healthy breakfast set me up to be fat'!

I am still a huge advocate of DO WHAT SUITS YOU AND YOUR BODY NOT WHAT SUITS SOMEONE ELSE!!!! If 5:2 is working for you then why change?

Ballerina x

P.S. If you fancy trying it then I think gillymary's tip is excellent, think of it as brunch x

I definitely understand the principle of how it works for weight loss/maintenance. Perhaps simcoeluv you could eat 4,000 calories in an 8 hour window now, but I think (without, I must admit, any proof - just a hunch) that over time your capacity for that much food would naturally diminish, and you wouldn't necessarily even realise it. So it wouldn't be hardship at all, just something your body did on its own.

I'm really of 2 minds about whether I continue 16:8 while doing 5:2. I weighed today and lost a pound (woo-hoo!) on the week but didn't do much 16:8 at all especially at the weekend (way-hey!). So that tells me it may not be necessary for weight loss if I'm still doing 5:2. On the other hand, I have to say that after about 3 weeks of "kind of" doing 16:8 I just may be getting used to it - I fasted yesterday and am not nearly as ravenous as I have been at this point in the past. I could eat (as in "I'm not really hungry but if you offered me food I'd love it") but I'm not chewing the wallpaper - I think I can wait till lunch, so I'm going to see how it goes.

I like doing 16:18 on the weekends and 5:2 during the week, it fits in with my lifestyle. I don't miss breakfast on the weekends, I have found that I prefer brunch.

I had been doing 5:2 and was slowly losing weight. I am almost at my goal weight so I have switched to 16:8 and to my surprise I am still losing weight, although slowly. For me 16:8 suits beautifully with no calorie counting. I skip breakfast have normal lunch, afternoon snack and dinner as usual. The calorie deficit comes from not eating breakfast and grazing in between meals apart from a healthy afternoon snack. I have the odd treat and I have found my choices are much healthier generally. I'm very happy!

Ballerina,are you still losing weight?i have had a bad week,despite fasting and doing16.8 I am up almost a kilo this week
In all I have lost 2 and a half kilos in 10 weeks bringing my Bmi down to just over 20
My aim is to get to 19 but can't seem to do it
How long did it take you,and how did you do it?

I definitely understand the principle of how it works for weight loss/maintenance. Perhaps simcoeluv you could eat 4,000 calories in an 8 hour window now, but I think (without, I must admit, any proof - just a hunch) that over time your capacity for that much food would naturally diminish, and you wouldn't necessarily even realise it. So it wouldn't be hardship at all, just something your body did on its own.

I was just trying to make a point. 16:8 is not a weight loss diet, because it carries with it no calorie restrictions whatsoever. A person can follow 16:8 and gain weight. A person with a TDEE of 1800 can easily eat 2000 with a lunch and dinner. Weight loss diets, even the grapefruit diet, cut calories out of a 'normal' diet, 16:8 does not.

16:8 is a way of eating - it forces a person to ingest all of their calories in a single 8 hour period each day. No one has explained to me yet why that is helpful. The closest I've heard is it somehow causes fat to burn, but that easily cannot happen depending on the make-up of the evening meal and the individual's body chemistry.

If 16:8 helps someone retain their weight loss by forcing them to skip breakfast, fine. As I said, I'm not 'against' it. But bottom line, it is the person choosing not to over eat during the 8 hour period that is making a difference, not the 16:8 way of eating. They could make that same choice not to over eat over a 10 or 12 hour period if they wanted to. Now if the way of eating was 23hr. 55 min.:5 min., it might be a different discussion.

This week I have done 16:8 apart from one liquid fast day and my weight has dropped very slightly (.4 pound) I do it because I'm not at all hungry until lunchtime. And I generally stop eating quite early anyway.

I think if I was ravenous at breakfast, I would not be able to do it though. And like Ballerina says this is a very tweakable WOE.

Good luck in whatever you choose

You are right
I realised today I have to listen to my body
Most days I don't feel hungry in the morning and am quite happy to just eat an apple mod morning but today I woke up hungry and felt better for eating breakfast
Will see what tomorrow brings

The way I see it and do 16/8+5:2 is Monday & Thursday are my 5:2 fast days and the 3 other week days I eat from about lunch time to dinner, I don't over eat because it is not about going crazy and binging and cramming in as much food as I can but reasonable dietary routine and catching up on what I might be hankering for, going out to lunch, having the odd carbs. If i feel ok I keep up 16:8 over the weekend but if I want breakfast I go for it depends how I am going. I do complete my MFP just as a rough estimate so I can look back if needed.

16:8 better for me as I was troubled by intense headaches which are now manifesting as migraines. I have lost 3/4 of my goal weight and I choose 5:2+ 16:8 as it 'suits' me and I have persisted with this version for a month and while slow I have not gained, don't have as many headaches. Went out yesterday with my loose pants held up with a belt in 4 notches and purchased a new pair of trousers a size down and a top 2 sizes down. It's working!

I have to say we are on a mission to lose weight, for health benefits and maintenance. we know it is going to take persistence and we have to do what works for us best as it is long term

I seem to do a 16:8 naturally. I very rarely eat breakfast and supper is nearly as rare (supper tends to be pudding from dinner time eaten a couple of hours later, if/when we have puddings).
But, I feel that by not having breakfast I am not waking up my body to hunger pangs. If I have breakfast I eat and eat all day. I would much rather have a brunch and dinner.

Hi Julieathome,

This is EXACTLY how I feel but not everyone has the same requirement, my husband thinks he will die if he does not eat breakfast and guess what? he is about 3 stone overweight, ah well, such is life

Ballerina x