The FastDay Forum

These are interesting questions.

As I roam around the site, I see constant efforts to modify 5:2 into a standard 'eat fewer calories every or most days' diet. All under the banner of adapting it to fit what someone wants it to be for them. Fine, but at some point it is not 5:2.

5:2 was not designed as a weight loss diet. It was designed as a life extension/disease prevention diet. Following results from decades of research, it requires severe calorie restriction twice a week. A 'side effect' of the severe calorie restriction is weight loss. That is 5:2.

Suggesting that you can eat as many calories as you want every day while 'following' 5:2 is simply not 5:2. Take the 2pm to 2pm 'variation'. You can eat all of the calories you want until 2pm (pick any number of calories you can eat in that time period). After 2 pm, say you eat another 250 before you go to bed (eat sparingly). You get up the next morning and eat, say 250 but no more, before 2 pm. After 2 pm, you can eat as many calories as you want until bedtime. Where is the 'calorie restriction' in that? At best it is an 'eat less than usual for two days' eating plan. At worst, there is no eating less at all.

I am always interested when someone goes into a weight loss diet with the mindset of 'How can I eat the most calories possible under this diet?' It is a sad but true fact that to lose weight you have to eat less, and the less you eat the more you lose.

But 2pm to 2pm is in the 5:2 book! And 5:2 is just kind of made up anyway. MM admits he's experimenting on himself and its not a proper study. As far as I know, most of the studies on IF are alternate day fasting (ADF). I keep meaning to check whether Varady's subjects have any calories on 'fast' days.

Whatever the book says about the reasons for doing this, MM and plenty of others lose weight on it. Anyone doing it for other reasons might end up disappointed because the other health benefits are far from proven, particularly in long term human studies.

Why is there a problem with people figuring out what works best for them? I do 4:3 (also mentioned in the book). It's not for everyone. Some people combine 5:2 with low carb. That's not for everyone either.

But 2pm to 2pm is in the 5:2 book! And 5:2 is just kind of made up anyway. MM admits he's experimenting on himself and its not a proper study. As far as I know, most of the studies on IF are alternate day fasting (ADF). I keep meaning to check whether Varady's subjects have any calories on 'fast' days.

Whatever the book says about the reasons for doing this, MM and plenty of others lose weight on it. Anyone doing it for other reasons might end up disappointed because the other health benefits are far from proven, particularly in long term human studies.

Why is there a problem with people figuring out what works best for them? I do 4:3 (also mentioned in the book). It's not for everyone. Some people combine 5:2 with low carb. That's not for everyone either.

I simply said 2 to 2 is not 5:2. It does not share characteristics with 5:2. 4:3 is not 5:2, nor is 16:8. I really don't care if people do any of them, or Atkins or low fat or grapefruit.

And the book is not a bible.

I would argue that 2 to 2 IS 5:2, with 24hr low cal days instead of 36. But I won't argue because this is just semantics. Everyone needs to find what works for them, whatever they decide to call it.

I think the problem with 2pm to 2pm, or 5pm to 5pm , and this certainly would apply in my own case, is that I would most likely overeat prior to my 2pm fast start, and do the same at the other end. For some reason I don't seem to be tempted to overeat on a feed day prior to or after a fast day. The eat, sleep, fast, sleep, eat, routine clearly delineates in my head whether I am eating normally or fasting. In effect I can't be tempted to cheat so to speak. Anyway that's why I prefer it this way I am primarily doing this to lose weight but the potential health benefits are an added bonus.

The Varaday study gave people lunch, I think. Surprised to see 2-2 is in the book. It's a case of finding the best fit for you.

Dont forget that we all have a mini-fast overnight of 7-8 hours - longer if you don't snack in the evenings. So the big bonus of doing an all-day fast is that the night before's fast and the night after's fast are then added onto the whole day fast - you get a much longer fasting period, which not only benefits health, but keeps you in the fat-burning ketosis for longer. it seems a waste to fast from 2-2 and only include one night into the fast, rather than 2.

Dont forget that we all have a mini-fast overnight of 7-8 hours - longer if you don't snack in the evenings. So the big bonus of doing an all-day fast is that the night before's fast and the night after's fast are then added onto the whole day fast - you get a much longer fasting period, which not only benefits health, but keeps you in the fat-burning ketosis for longer. it seems a waste to fast from 2-2 and only include one night into the fast, rather than 2.

Right on point

Evidence so far is that doing 5:2 leads to a very high percentage of weight loss being fat loss, not muscle. Those of us with an Atkins background understand ketosis, how long it takes to kick in, and what it takes to go away. With 5:2, you will burn the most fat using the 'liquid diet' variation - not eating anything on your fast days. You will burn the least snacking throughout the fast day. One meal at the end of the day is in between. Low carb eating on fast days helps, high carb eating does not help with fat loss. With 2 to 2, there will be little, if any, ketosis. It is simply an eat fewer calories each day diet. Nothing wrong with that, but it does not burn as much fat as quickly as 5:2.

From MMs website:
"If, however, you decide to fast from 2pm until 2pm, as some fasters do, you would have a normal lunch on Day 1, then a 300 calorie supper on Day 1 and a 300 calorie breakfast on Day 2. If you have a normal lunch on Day 2 this would be a 24-hour fast, full stop. You can, of course, decide to skip lunch on Day 2 and wait till supper to break your fast.

On the 2pm-2pm method, because your fasting window is diminished, your overall weekly calorie count will probably be higher than with the 7am-7am method. You will probably lose weight more slowly."
http://thefastdiet.co.uk/different-ways ... -fast-day/

So I see no problem with this and you have been doing 5:2, maybe not in the same way that most of us do it but that's down to personal choice.

I see it like this:
If a person can do 2-2 but not a 36-hours fast won't it be better than doing nothing at all?
If a person can do 5:2 with no calories reduction on 5 days won't it be better than doing nothing at all?
If a person can do 5:2 and snack their way through the 2 fast days won't it be better than doing nothing at all?

In all 3 questions the reply is yes. And in the long term all above people will lose weight. Perhaps in lower speed than others, perhaps they won't get the health benefits of fasting but they will get the health benefits of weighing less.

So, please, stop trying to put people in order when 5:2 is meant to do the total opposite. This thing is so adaptable that it can work for each and one of us in any variation one can think of!

I think the confusion comes into play with other types of intermittent fasting that were around long before Mosley did the show on 5:2. There are many people doing 16:8 or the 8 Hour Diet and Fast Five which is basically 19:5. Some practicing that type of IF then move on to eating dinner only every day and eating whatever they want. I have heard of several eating at 6pm daily. Nothing but liquids other than what they eat at 6pm every day. It is a different type of IF than what is described in Mosley's book. But I know of some people who have had a lot of success with it.

AS long as fewer than 500 or 600 cals go down your throat for 24 hour period the job is being done.

For goodness sake though, guys, some discomfort is to be expected. I'm not impressed with tales of woe about "whole bad days" or what have you. Are you hoping it's going to drop off by magic??

Tailer 5;2 for life commitments or work, yes, but not because you might have bad day.....

When I was in high school the fashionable diet was to eat nothing but a late lunch. You could practically eat whatever you fancied! Many people lost lots of weight by doing that.
I remember that once I lost the Holidays weight with that.

I figure if people want to add 16:8 x3 days a week on top of their 2 x 5:2 days and then that is their choice. I do it to add a parameter around my feed days, that is my business. 5:2 was not handed down on a tablet to Moses. There is no right way, we are all adults here and we can choose. I have seen 'the 5:2 rules' creeping in and I for one think it is imposing a restriction in thinking and that is going to be unfortunate for some as we all do not respond the same to 5:2, you then need to find what variation works for you.

I went looking for my best maintenance hence trialled to see how 16:8 worked for me and also because I could not tolerate liquid fasting due to severe headaches. I know all about Atkins and ketosis, been there with the urine testing sticks it was successful too but not as good as 5:2. A lot of us have lost weight on standard 5:2 and we also want the long term benefits.

This forum is always going to have people commenting how they feel, how they struggle. That is the beauty of it, one can get on the forum and go blah blah and be be encouraged by the lovely supportive folk who take the time out to be nurturing and supportive. Alternatively if thats not your way don't have to do that, it's another choice.

I think the problem with 2pm to 2pm, or 5pm to 5pm , and this certainly would apply in my own case, is that I would most likely overeat prior to my 2pm fast start, and do the same at the other end. For some reason I don't seem to be tempted to overeat on a feed day prior to or after a fast day. The eat, sleep, fast, sleep, eat, routine clearly delineates in my head whether I am eating normally or fasting. In effect I can't be tempted to cheat so to speak. Anyway that's why I prefer it this way I am primarily doing this to lose weight but the potential health benefits are an added bonus.

I think you are right.

These people who are thinking of 2 till 2, unless it's for work related reasons, just want something for nothing.

I've lost a clear stone now and i'm quite happy to work for more (or less which ever way you look at it!).