The FastDay Forum

I've thought about this all afternoon. I hate to close off debate, because freedom to throw ideas around is where progress comes from, but as someone with control issues, and a mother, I want to keep this forum safe for all. And I agree this forum is so invaluable we shouldn't take any risks with it so I voted for 1.

Hi Moogie, I am really relieved this is being addressed. 5:2 is not about seeing how long you can survive without eating or exercising more and more control over food which some posts imply (even if that's not the intention of the person posting). I voted for 2b as I could accept that, but I would be happier with option 1 if I'm honest.

I thought this form/website was for 5:2 fasting, not extended fasting. The feeling of emptiness and control can be strangely enjoyable and I feel one could, if they were that way inclined, easily tip over into extended fasting, possibly ending up with a form of anorexia. My daughter had an eating disorder following a diet which went too far and it took her years to sort herself out and get well. I would have serious concerns if I thought extended fasting was considered a safe way to loose weight. The whole point of 5:2 is so that we can "eat normally" 5 days a week.

I am only interested in 5:2 fasting as set out originally with 500 calories per day for females and 600 calories per day for males on two non-consecutive days per week. How people consume this amount is up to them. This is sustainable.

I can only tell if 5:2 works for me if I keep following the basics for several months and it is too early to tell if I am having any positive changes in areas such as blood tests, thyroid function etc.

OK, I realised that I hadn't submitted my vote before so I changed my mind and voted for 5.
Indeed this is a forum for 5:2 and although I'm not against liquid fasting, I think that having this subject separately is better.

I voted 6 because I'm happy to go along with what the forum staff suggest and if their preference is 2a or 2b that is fine with me. I don't like extended fasting and was worried that on some threads there seemed to be a competition about who could last longest without food which is ridiculous, and far from the most sustainable way to lose weight.

This subject matter has been hanging over the forum for quite a while now, so thank you mods for addressing it. I agree with many of the comments posted, particularly how easy it suddenly starts to feel to go without food, after a set amount of time. My thoughts have always been that this feeling does not necessarily mean that continuing to go without food is good for us. A very common note in many posts is to "listen" to our bodies and as the energy and lightness, sometimes described as a feeling of euphoria feels so right then it must be ok to continue the fast. In other words, starve ourselves. The immediate short term gain is weight loss but it has potential to cause long term problems too, not least of which is an obsessive and unhealthy relationship with food. The term "liquid fasts" is not clear. Does it mean water, tea, coffee with milk, miso etc. A juice fast of extended duration is surely a safer and healthier option if you are consuming calories and nutrients as opposed to a water only fast? Not enough studies have been done to warrant promoting water only fasts of more than 36 hours, unless under medical supervision. It is an interesting topic, and engenders strong opinions and feelings, but as PhilT pointed out, the net is a big world and I don't think this forum is the appropriate place for people to post their experiences of extended fasting, even though a lot of it is very interesting.

In the horizon programme Micheal Moseley initially did a three day fast and I think this place is a perfectly reasonable place to discuss it, the pros and cons.

I'm not sure if you are including liquid only fast in the ones that you think should not be discussed or only fasts of longer than 36 hours. Can you please clarify?

I'm editing because I didn't read all the thread and also had no idea there were discussions of up to ten day fasts! Anyway, after reading everything I have voted for 1.

I voted 6 because I'm happy to go along with what the forum staff suggest and if their preference is 2a or 2b that is fine with me. I don't like extended fasting and was worried that on some threads there seemed to be a competition about who could last longest without food which is ridiculous, and far from the most sustainable way to lose weight.

I agree with you, franglaise. I'm happy with what the mods decide, but admit I'd prefer not to have discussion on this forum about extended fasting.

Umelia - Dr M did do a longer fast but both he and the doctor who supervised him (can't recall the name) were not in favour of doing this unless under medical supervision. I understood that 5:2 was an acceptable unsupervised compromise...

I voted 6 because I'm happy to go along with what the forum staff suggest and if their preference is 2a or 2b that is fine with me. I don't like extended fasting and was worried that on some threads there seemed to be a competition about who could last longest without food which is ridiculous, and far from the most sustainable way to lose weight.

I agree with you, franglaise. I'm happy with what the mods decide, but admit I'd prefer not to have discussion on this forum about extended fasting.

Umelia - Dr M did do a longer fast but both he and the doctor who supervised him (can't recall the name) were not in favour of doing this unless under medical supervision. I understood that 5:2 was an acceptable unsupervised compromise...

Hi, yes I realized that but when I posted there was only the post from Dhana and I did not read all the info on the wider thread. That is why I edited and on reading decided to vote for number 1

I voted 6 because I'm happy to go along with what the forum staff suggest and if their preference is 2a or 2b that is fine with me. I don't like extended fasting and was worried that on some threads there seemed to be a competition about who could last longest without food which is ridiculous, and far from the most sustainable way to lose weight.

I agree with you, franglaise. I'm happy with what the mods decide, but admit I'd prefer not to have discussion on this forum about extended fasting.

Umelia - Dr M did do a longer fast but both he and the doctor who supervised him (can't recall the name) were not in favour of doing this unless under medical supervision. I understood that 5:2 was an acceptable unsupervised compromise...

Hi, yes I realized that but when I posted there was only the post from Dhana and I did not read all the info on the wider thread. That is why I edited and on reading decided to vote for number 1

So I've just read! And apologies - I mispelled your nom Umleila

I can't seem to be able to vote on my I pad but I have to say this is called the 5 2 fast diet forum. I believe it should be what it says it is. therefor if I could vote I would vote no 1.

Wow I just typed a huge answer (I always drivel on in posts!) and then realised everyone else has said it so much better so deleted it!
dhana and JKW's posts in particular. and Franglaise.

36 hours with 500 cals is enough for me - not really interested in anything longer as this is supposed to be sustainable and doable in the long term. I've had way too many issues with guilt over food before and doing this is my way of having my cake and eating it (literally... will probably have some cake tomorrow....)

I would say 6 to let the staff have the final say.

I never realised that there had been a thread about a 10 day fast, or that it had been pulled.

Ballerina x

I voted number 1 because that is why we're all here after all