The FastDay Forum

Hi there, I'm a newbie looking for advice and maybe some reassurance. Am sure I'm not the only one to have asked this but can't find the answers on the forum so my apologies if this is a constant question!

I started on 5:2 last week and am just finishing my 4th fast day and am pleased how it's going so far. My goal is weight loss first and followed by the health benefits that come with it and am hoping that 5:2 as a way of life will help me maintain a healthy weight after years of yo-yo dieting. But I have a couple of problems!

My BMR is 1364 and my TDEE is either 2115 or 1876 depending on how many runs I get in, I've plumped for 1876. At 25% less calories (469 calories) I'm not sure if this means over the remaining feed days I should eat 1876 calories or 1364.

Now I know the whole idea with 5:2 is NOT to count calories on feed days - but the thought of not counting terrifies me as historically every time I don't 'watch' what I eat I gain weight. I think the best way for me to get my confidence with this method is by initially counting calories but am not sure how many this should be - the more I calculate the more confused I get!

Then comes the exercise calories, I understand that we don't 'eat them back'?

Incidentally I eat healthily - lots of fresh veggies and fruit, mostly fish or chicken, lentils, pulses, whole grains etc, very little processed food.

Any advice gratefully received!

[carorees]

1876 is the right one. BMR would be far too low. No you can't eat exercise calories back as they have already been included in the TDEE calculation.

Your healthy diet sounds perfect for 5:2ing plus you'll probably have a few cals free for some treats so you won't feel like you're dieting!

Good luck!

WOW! Now that's really scary Carorees - I've been eating 1200 (and not losing weight) so the thought of eating 1876 is a bit mind blowing!

[carorees]

Well there are no guarantees as the TDEE calculation is not always accurate due to so much variation between people. However, I'd start there and give it 6 weeks. If you are not losing by then you may have to decrease your cals on feed and fast days or add another fast day. But best see how you get on using the TDEE calculated for you. The big difference between feed and fast days is thought to help with the weight loss.

Thank you Caroline, will give it a go! I's said I would try it for a month, perhaps I should be more patient and open to 'tweaking'.

This topic seems to be creating a lot of debate on other sites. In the book it says categorically that there is no need to watch calories on feed days, also to avoid bingeing of course. Much is being said about TDEE's, BMR's and about what proteins or fats to eat on 'normal' days. I am not a doctor or nutritionist but have a background in psychology working with the NHS, so, I am interested in the way we address dieting psychologically. Surely the reason why many diets fail is that they often revolve around continuously monitoring everything that we eat whereas 5:2 can enable us to relax about food most of the time. Does calorie counting on food days count as a 5:2 ?

That's a good point Trevmun, from what I've read on here and elsewhere, it seems that even if you are over eating on your feast days that it soon becomes habit to eat less. Quite a few people have mentioned that a consequence of the fast days seems to be eating healthier, or certainly less cals, on feast days. I've only been going a week but I know I found I wasn't as hungry as I thought I was going to be the day after a fast.
After years of calorie counting I'm going to just relax and eat what I like, I think (and hope) this will eventually balance itself out, it may take me a little longer, but as others have pointed out its a forever sort of deal!

As an obsessive calorie counter, (I have spread sheets and everything!) and a yo-yo dieter for years (so calorie counting doesn't work for me!) I am finding it hard to give this up.

What I have decided to do is to give myself four weeks of my usual counting and then gradually ease myself out of it. I am just at the end of my third week (weigh-in tomorrow morning!) and am off to Germany for a week on Tuesday, so that will mean that I have to give up on the spreadsheets and just go for it.

I'll let you know how I get on!

Hi elizamc,

You are very justified in being "Anxious about calorie intake on non-fast days". I advise that you monitor your calories eaten on the "feed days" and use MyFitnessPal to track it....

Why?

Take a look at the 5:2 section of Dr MMs Horizon program in the link from the "Resources" forum and in particular, the section from 48 minutes to the end.

Ask yourself:

1) Are you going on holiday soon to walk the Trans-Pennine-Way (from now on referred to as the TPW-diet)?

This is a coast to coast foot path that runs from north of Liverpool, south, then across to Manchester, up and over the Pennines, then across to the east coast north of Hull. How far is that? How many metres climbed?

2) Are you going to do total 24 hour fasts?

Dr MM switches from Breakfast & Diner to Breakfast to Breakfast total fasts.


3) Are you going to be doing a twenty four hour fast whilst also walking the TPW?

If you look at this section of the program Dr MM, appears totally shattered. Hardly surprising! He is at this point in time, possibly doing a 4:1 (4 weeks normal 5:2 with 1 weeks TPW-Diet) or even 3:2? (two weeks of TPW-Diet)...

I believe that these factors go a long way to explaining his ">1 stone loss in 5 weeks" quote at the end of the program (3 lbs or so weekly). Remember the 5:2 on it's own, gives men a little >1 lb and women <1 lb weekly deficit. Unfortunately many folks have appeared to have latched on to the 3 lb rate of loss thinking it due entirely to the 5:2 diet without considering the TPW-diet or an alternative equivalent exercise component.

The TPW-diet and normal exercise may in fact account for a very large proportion of Dr MMs quoted loss during the 5 week "5:2" diet. In fact, I wish he hadn't done the TPW-diet and ended the program by quoting 6-7 lbs or so in 5 weeks i.e. a realistic and sustainable amount for most folks not into long distance hill walking whilst fasting. But perhaps it doesn't sell books?

The "progress tracker" page shows a 1.64 lbs weekly loss for 46-60 year old Males, on 5:2, for 1-3 months, and who were 'overweight' at the start. This is a much more realistic, sustainable, and quite frankly honest expectation than Dr MMs slight of hand Sales Pitch (Running, Ducking and hiding ).

So, if you are not doing humungous amounts of exercise, also if you are more than just slightly overweight, then please consider monitoring your calorie intake on non-fast days.



P.S. I've been 'anxious' about writing all that, but decided needs must. There seems to be a number of folks who think that a loss of "3 lbs in 3 weeks" or so is a failure, when in fact, its WAD. I DO like the 5:2 and am here for the long haul!

Thank you for posting this, LastChance.
Previous replies have been rather dogmatic and, I feel, divisive: "if you count cals on feast days, you're not really doing 5:2" or "the book says thou shall not count."

I prefer to count because I know my weaknesses. Relaxing around food has led me to being obese. I prefer to see the numbers. They guide and reassure me.
I ask myself why it matters to anyone else that I'm counting? (I am, every day.)

[carorees]

WAD? Works as designed?

I have only roughly tracked my calories out of interest on feed days, and not held back on food, and discovered that I don't overeat on average on feed days. So it's important to remember that it doesn't matter if you over eat on the weekend as long as you under eat during the week.

I think that if you are anxious and track you calories for a little while and discover you are not over eating overall, you can certainly stop counting.

By overeating, I mean eating more than TDEE on feed days on average. As TDEE takes into account your exercise level, this still holds true that you can stop counting if you don't overeat even if you are not big on exercise.

It matters to the person who asked the question, eh?

I'm more worried by those who hugely restrict calories on every day and end up averaging *on every day* less than they need to fuel themselves adequately over the week.

That is what will give this WoE a bad name.

Hi Keihira, sorry if you felt I was being devisive. I think we are all trying out what is best for us as this is a relatively new concept in dieting. I am interested in how we maintain our motivation. Some are saying that they have a food anxiety and have calorie counted almost obsessively (posts above), and don't trust themselves to eat normally on non-fast days. I just wondered if part of 5:2 was to build this self-trust by reassurance that its ok to eat normally and not fear food. But I understand that this is not an immediate process. We dont know yet how 5:2 will progress, it seems to promise health benefits, weight loss, and a greater awareness of our food needs. People are adapting this to their own needs, my comments on what the book says just come from my medical background of trial work and following protocols which in this case says you dont need to count calories on normal days. Those who do are doing what might be called a 5:2 plus, equally valid and, as so many are, it will be interesting to compare. We certainly need to find something, as despite all the diet plans over the last 50-60 years nothing has been particularly succesful. So apologies once again, but there is almost a reverse anxiety from dieters who have tried counting all the points, analysed TDEE's, etc etc and just want to have a few days rest when they can relax, we do have to put a lot of trust in the process and as Last Chance says, not get too worried when we are not losing weight ( after a quick half stone in 4 weeks it seems to have stuck with me but we'll see). Good Luck

Hi all
I posted a comment a week or so ago about not losing weight after being on the diet since January. I took advice (thank you caroline) to skip breakfast and only eat from lunchtime on my fast days with a meal in the evening too. I am finally seeing a difference. I have lost 2 " around my waist but my weight has only dropped slightly. I am pleased with how its going but wanted to say that I have noticed on my feast days I no longer have cravings and I can only eat smaller portions now.
I also think that eating more proteins on my feast days has increased my metabolism which is helping with the weight loss and probably not giving me cravings. It may not be for everyone but wanted to share info on how its working for me.
I feel more alert, more energetic and healthier.
I hope it continues.
Jan

Hi Caroline,

"WAD? Works as designed?"

Yep!


Hi Trevmum,

Re: "Normally"

Left to my own devices, I'll eat 'normally', but normally for me. In the book DrMM says "...Instead I decided to create and test my own, modified version. Five days a week, I would eat normally; on the remaining two I would eat a quarter of my usual calorie intake (i.e. 600 calories)...."

Now is that "Normally" for Dr MM or "Normally" for the general male population, age 46-60 who are just overweight. Or what?

The is of concern form me because he goes on to say that:

"...Krista has done a number of studies on ADF, and what surprised her is that, even when they are allowed to, people don’t go crazy on their feed days. ‘I thought when I started running these trials that people would eat 175% the next day; they’d just fully compensate and wouldn’t lose any weight. But most people eat around 110%, just slightly over what they usually eat. I haven’t measured it yet, but I think it involves stomach size, how far that can expand out. Because eating almost twice the amount of food that you normally eat is actually pretty difficult. You can do it over time; people that are obese, their stomachs get bigger to accommodate, you know, 5000 calories a day. But just to do it right off is actually pretty difficult.’..."

Personally, I'm in this later group. ie. what's "normal" for me led me to being obese (BMI now down to 35+).

So apart from the TPW-diet aspects, cutting to the chase, Dr MM was a slightly overweight guy, whose biochemistry was off, he's lean and mean now, but hey it only took him 5 weeks. "Normal" eating for him at 55 resulted in a perhaps being 1 stone or more overweight. His "Normal" appears relatively close to population ideal normal for his group.

This isn't the case for many of us. We can't use "our" normal for eating, we have to strive to achieve the "population" normal or TDEE. If you're 'obese' then your "normal" is "abnormal". So, I am concerned that this study (where n=1) is not generally applicable (unless your Male, 46-60 and only slightly overweight).

My gut reaction, is that the further away from the normal BMI range you are, then the greater the need to monitor calories on Feed-days, since this would intuitively appear to suggest that it reflects a proportionate variance from the population "normal" eating patterns.