The FastDay Forum

So glad I found this forum, really helpful to see most people only have a 1 lb weekly loss on average. That's about what I'm getting, only been doing it for about 4 weeks. My husband is also fasting, has lost less than me but he's restricting what he eats on feast days too. Have to see how we get on...

Welcome lindyloo!

Actually the long-run weight loss is somewhat less than 1 lb, the average is only at that level because we have a lot of new fasters here and the weight loss in the first few weeks is higher. Have a look at the forum stats and you will see what I mean.

hi everyone!

I am so enjoying this forum! It's great to read the excellent info people post about how things work!
I've been fasting 5 weeks, about twice a week, and have also lost about 1lb a week. Was slightly worried this was not normal, but happy to hear it's most people's average.
For me though, the most striking effects are not the loss itself but how well I feel!

the reason that 4:3 shows the same loss as 5:2 is because a lot of people are struggling to lose on 5:2. 4:3ers are very happy to be losing a lb a week and are not expecting more or quicker

Hi there. Soo glad to have found this forum as I have been doing 5/2 for 10 weeks and have lost 9 pounds. I was considering giving up but now having read these stats realise that this is about right! Am now encouraged to carry on!!

Thanks for the info. Great way for newbies like me to see that it's getting real results.

Well, I've been doing 5:2 for about 5 weeks now, and what you've reported is pretty much exactly how it's been going for me. The first week and a half or so, I lost three pounds. And then my weight loss slowed down, so I am averaging about a pound a week now. My BMI was in the normal range to begin with, so I see that a pound a week or even less would be standard for me. Glad to see that my body is doing exactly what it's supposed to. I need to find a way to calculate my body fat and also I suppose I should measure myself as well to see if there is more to the story than just a six-pound weight loss. Thanks for the info- it's very helpful!!!

I wonder if a lot of the variance is a matter of scale?

I'm 6'2" and have been generally losing between 1.5 and 2 pounds a week. From the stats we know most of the people on here are women so the average height is going to be about 5'4"? Given the square in calculating BMI is a simplification and that a figure closer to 2.5 fits the data better it means that for the same 'BMI' I have about 1.5 times the weight of the average person here so not surprising that my weight loss is similarly scaled?

[carorees]

Yes of course you are right. However among the women of around 5'4" and similar BMI etc some are, like myself losing 2lb a week, others are only getting 0.5 lb. I am interested in these folks who are outside the standard deviation of the mean.

Look forward to seeing this report as time goes by and membership increases. I'm guessing that the average weight loss wont change, be interesting to see it on the graph though.

Yes of course you are right. However among the women of around 5'4" and similar BMI etc some are, like myself losing 2lb a week, others are only getting 0.5 lb. I am interested in these folks who are outside the standard deviation of the mean.

If the 5:2 calorie deficit is only approximately 3000 cals for women (less than a pound) and 3800 cals for men (more than a pound), then it is self evident that a combination of activity throughout the week or eating patterns on the '5' feed days could either a) blow the fast day deficits out the water or b) lead to several pounds loss a week. So I don't really see any great secret or mystery here...

Another factor (in addition to starting weight mentioned above). Is that if you look in the progress tracker for the forum and check the percentage of "female" & "Healthy" starting weights (500 of 2000 or thereabouts). In other words, there's a "vanity" rather than a real health reason skew in this as well.

[carorees]

And your answer to the people who are being strict on feed and fast days and are exercising a lot but not losing weight, despite a BMI of over 25 is...?

And your answer to the people who are being strict on feed and fast days and are exercising a lot but not losing weight, despite a BMI of over 25 is...?

My point is that there is a very fine line between "success" (1-1.5 lbs a week), "failure" (0.5 lbs a week) and "doing very well" (2 lbs per week) on 5:2 - It's just a 1.5 lbs equivalent range, roughly 5000 cals. In other words to move from 'failure' to 'success' would be 2500 cals and similarly from "success" to "doing very well". 2500 cals (500 cals/feed day) is not a lot and easily accounted for by variance in activity/eating levels. e.g 3 x plain chocolate digestives or a thirty minute walk or less than 1 mars bar a day?

I think there are a number of tricky issues though:

1) 'Activity' vs 'Exercise'.

I'm basically "sedentary". i.e., at work I now drive a desk with 2 Pcs on top and 2 Pcs underneath. At home I have "my spot" on "my couch". (A couch potato probably moves more than I do). I also hate gardening and DIY. But I have started going to the gym and walking. Whilst my gym sessions are quite intense, I think they may only just offset my fundamentally 'sedentary' life style. This wasn't always the case and prior to becoming a 'desk jockey' I was mostly on my feet all day in an active job (and 5 stone lighter).

Others may not "exercise" but without even knowing it be very "active". i.e. gardening, DIY, ironing, cleaning, playing drums, walking the dog etc etc.

Others may "exercise" and go to the gym but basically be very sedentary. From my own observations in the gym there's issues here. I've just got back from my local gym. I see a lot of folks who seem to avoid breaking into a sweat at all costs, and are for example jogging on the treadmill (but with no gradient) so burning few calories. There's also an issue (which I can't understand) of folks who seem to have an aversion to touching the pulse sensors on any of the cardio kit and appear willing to get into all sorts of funny positions to avoid finding out what there pulse is - so how hard are they working? Then there's those that do cardio and no weights or those that use the gym for networking etc etc.

All these perceptions of "activities" (or lack thereof) can lead to huge variances in "basal metabolic rates" (BMR) [whatever happened to BMR keep seeing TDEE quoted here?] and total calories burnt a day.


2) Calorie Counting.

Measuring the calories accurately in food is difficult (possibly impossible?). e.g Do you use a digital balance always? Do you remember everything you consumed? BUT.. do you believe the labelling on packaging? I don't any longer. e.g. A BK whopper on the US site has more cals than a whopper on the UK site. I guess it could be size, but lately I've started thinking that it could that the labelling laws are different and that this results in the different values in each location. Similarly, there was the recent article on differences in UK/US labelling regarding calories excluded (UK) for fibre whilst these are included (US). All seems somewhat airy fairy to me.

3) The Null hypothesis

Is there a mechanism whereby Net calories gained or lost is not just a function of BMR, calories consumed and activity? Some biochemical pathway as yet undiscovered?

4) A Pragmatic approach

"...your answer to the people who are being strict on feed and fast days and are exercising a lot but not losing weight..."

So... I'm not sure there is a simple answer. The flippant answer is "eat less, exercise more". However, the first place to start would be to initially exclude starvation mode, caloric restriction and do a detailed lifestyle audit to include activity, exercise, food consumed as well as TDEE etc etc.

Personally, as a desk jockey (sedentary) , I found that when on 5:2 I was still eating too much on the '5' days, I've consistently lost weight on the weeks I've tried 4:3 (which for me is therefore better than a plateau, even if its only the same as the Avg for the group as a whole), and increasing levels of activity by walking lunchtimes in work and more formal trips to the gym. These measures have led to me averaging around 1.0lb/week overall. All of which, seems to indicate that for me a major factor is a "sedentary" vs. "active" life style.

So I come back to the idea of a 'Life style audit' as being a possible way forwards for some. The 'sedentary'/'active' life style issue seems key to me.

BW and sorry for length of post.

Perception may be a factor.

I think of myself as generally unfit but I'm toddling off to the gym and doing high intensity exercise occasionally. However, I probably do less overall running about than someone with a couple of small kids.

It's hard to judge what you do.

Perception may be a factor.

I think of myself as generally unfit but I'm toddling off to the gym and doing high intensity exercise occasionally. However, I probably do less overall running about than someone with a couple of small kids.

It's hard to judge what you do.

Agreed!