The FastDay Forum

[Moogie]

Michael has posted about the 24 hour fast-day vs 36 hour -
http://thefastdiet.co.uk/different-ways ... -fast-day/

As we suspected, weight loss is likely to be slower on the 24h (1 sleep) fast-day due to the decreased calorie deficit.

Language is so easy to twist, who would have thought a 2pm-2pm fast involved having lunch at 2.01pm on the second day !

The calorie deficit depends how much you eat and when, rather than on stopping and starting times. The longer the fasting period (period without food) the better from the insulin / blood sugar / whatever reducing point of view, I would think.

Someone I work with failed to lose any weight at all after following the 24Hr patten for 5 weeks. She was starting her fast after a normal dinner (6.00pm) then having 500 cal split between breackfast and lunch, she then had a normal dinner after 6.00pm.

She has now lost 4lbs in 3 fast days after switching to starting her fast after dinner then have no more than 500 cal for breakfast, lunch and dinner, then ending the fast at breakfast the next day.

I'm a 36hrs min, 2 sleeps girl.
I've naturally just started my fast after regular evening meal then no more than 500 for the following day then back to normal the day after but I've been finding I'm not getting hungry until lunch time following a fast day so I just break my fast then.

I start my fast when I go to sleep one evening, and usually end it at lunchtime on the next day. Occasionally I will have breakfast the day after if I wake up especially hungry. But I find I cannot sleep on an empty stomach, so I eat shortly before sleeping both on fast and normal days. Seems to be working quite well so far, but can't really compare it to a 24 hour one as I haven't tried it.

[carorees]

I have 24 hours with no food but then only 500 cal, so I go 36 hours on 500 cal. The whole terminology is causing problems! In the context of 5:2, a '36 hour fast' means 36 hours with an intake of 500 cal, whereas a '36 hour liquid fast' aims to go 36 hours with virtually no calorie intake (just the cals in coffee/tea/bouillon).

I'm starting to think it would be better to get rid of the word "fast". It clearly means so many different things to different people?

[carorees]

I know, but we'd be swimming against the tide! I see that in the study by Dr Harvie et al, they call it intermittent dieting...perhaps we should change fast days to "diet days" and then we could talk about doing, say, a 20 hour fast on our diet day.

Perhaps we should run a poll and see if we get many takers?

Someone I work with failed to lose any weight at all after following the 24Hr patten for 5 weeks. She was starting her fast after a normal dinner (6.00pm) then having 500 cal split between breackfast and lunch, she then had a normal dinner after 6.00pm.

To me that's 23 hours. If she had gone for 24h that would be from after dinner to after dinner. By going from after dinner to before dinner she fell short of 24h.

Such small 4 letter words - such big confusion. Not sure why/how this is so complicated... but as has been said our language is a funny thing

I agree Suchard007 language can get complicated.

I don't know if anyone think this way but in my house we call my fasting days, mum's free days.
Even my kids ask mum are on a normal or free day?
Because I know I need to plan my fast days now I don't need to think what I'm going to have so it really is a free day rather than fast or diet day ,seem more apt for me.

Well, I think the good thing is the flexibility. I do 24 hours (dinner at about 6pm to 8pm) and then 24 hour fast (but for me this is 0kcal inbeetween). Starting in January, I have lost more than 10kg. Starting already with a healthy BMI this is outragous to me. Maybe I could have lost more with 36hours but this would have been much harder to me.

I am now also often do not eat anything at my feast day before early afternoon because I am not hungry at all. That might help me with the weight maintenance

Abby

I started off on 24hrs going from a light supper to a slightly later light supper the next day, it still felt like cheating but it wasn't that much extra calories so I did loose weight. It was certainly easier to just have to aim for 9pm on my first few fast days and I avoided the going to be hungry that I was concerned about. But talk about watching the clock as the last hour crawled by! When I got used to reduced food intake on fast days it surprisingly easy to go to the 36 hours.

Isn't the question really which is best for weight loss? A 1 sleep (24hour) fast sounds good for maintenance for people who want to keep fasting for the health benefits aside from weight loss. I've got quite a ways to go before I'm at my goal weight, but I've wondered what to do if/when I get there. I feel so good fast days and the day after a fast that I might want to continue the diet and a 24hour fast sounds like a viable way to do it. (Gah...I really shouldn't be getting ahead of myself!) Plus, the potential health benefits of fasting in disease prevention drew me to this WoE. I'll want to keep that up.

Doesn't someone on this forum call fast days "repair" days? I like that. It puts a little more emphasis on the health aspects, IMO.

I fast for 36 hours & my OH does 24 (actually more like 23.5) hours. Eating a low calorie dinner and skipping breakfast is no problem for him but thinking about calories at work when he has lots of work lunches just isn't an option. He didn't have too much weight to lose but he has nonetheless lost more weight than I have. On holiday I do the 24 hour thing and my weight loss really slows down (but doesn't reverse!). I guess it's another case of "different things work for different people", but hopefully the 24 hour regime is still giving him the other health benefits which were our motivation on starting in the first place.