The FastDay Forum

No 1 it is - agree with what most have said already about this - and thanks Moogie and the others for taking the time and effort to put all this down for us - again it's a sign of how well run this forum is

I voted for #1, but would be happy with #4a as well. I figured #1 would be simpler from a mod standpoint, but I'm not a mod so I'd be happy for them to make the call between themselves.

I think that, while extended fasting topics are indeed interesting and Dr. M's Horizons program featured him kicking it off with a 4-day fast, it says something when a MD gets close medical supervision from a fasting specialist (who is also a MD) in order to pursue a fasting experiment and comes away with the idea that he'd never consider, even with his new experience, doing it again on his own without close medical supervision.

Given the quote from Dr. Longo above, "a prolonged fast is an extreme intervention. If it's done well, it can be very powerful in your favour. If it's done improperly, it can be very powerful against you," I find that we really, really need to distinguish prolonged fasting from intermittent fasting and say that the primary focus of this forum is on intermittent fasting and that prolonged fasting is a distraction.

Also, part of the common criticisms of 5:2 is that it seems too extreme to people at first, and I find that when you get them to calm down and describe what it is we do (500-600 calories in 36 hours, twice per week, normally not on consecutive days, essentially skipping a meal or two in a day -- something everyone has done just because they got too busy on a day they slept too late to have breakfast and worked through lunch), they see that it is not extreme at all. If they then come to this forum and see people discussing 4-day (or longer) fasts, which even a doctor who specializes in and advocates for extended fasting has labeled "an extreme intervention," then how do we look people in the face and say what we're doing is not extreme? (I'm even a little leery about two consecutive fasting days in a row where you eat 500-600 calories each day...)

The other day there was a post about someone who found that they "accidentally" found themselves in their third day of a fast. I warned them about refeeding syndrome and reminded them that Dr. M. had close medical supervision for his extended fast. I hope I didn't scare them too much, but they certainly scared me!

Anyway, my two cents.

Moogie, you and the other mods are doing a great job with this forum. I trust you to do the best thing that fits within your schedules and reasonable-ness of what it means to be a mod, and I'm very happy you all put this post up and asked our opinions -- well done!

I voted 4c, although I could equally vote 6, because I do think it is up to the mods (and of course Moogie) what is discussed on this forum.

I appreciate that this is a 5:2 forum, but I really enjoyed reading the threads of people's journeys with longer fasting too. Yes, they aren't IF, and yes, there are other places online to get support, feedback and information about them. It's just me being lazy and selfish - if threads like that pop up here, I'll read them but I'm unlikely to go and seek out another place to go and read about it (seeing I'm unlikely to do it, 5:2 is a great way of life for me).

I suppose part of it is the problem of calling 5:2 fasting, when it's really restricting calories?

[Tracieknits]

I love reading everyone's comments (especially those of my sweet husband, BruceE)! And frankly, I'm so relieved that there is such a strong consensus.

I also wanted to note that the mods only locked the 10 day fasting thread once it hit four days, so we could discuss as a staff and as a community whether this was appropriate for this board. The original author of the thread then asked us to delete the entire thread, which we did on her request.

I don't want anyone thinking that we were quite that heavy handed, or that we delete threads regularly. I'm not sure we have deleted anything that wasn't clearly spam, or that someone asked us to delete. I personally have edited one post that referenced dangerous behavior (fasting for 111 days), but that was only after staff discussion, and a clear note was left indicating what was edited, with a warning about the dangers extreme fasting.

Although I'm quite happy to go with whatever the mods feel most comfortable with, if I had to choose, i'd pick option 1.

One of the first threads I came across when first venturing onto this site, and into the whole intermittent fasting WOE was about someone doing a 4 day water only fast. This was quickly followed by other threads about people also trying out liquid only fasts instead of 500 cal.

In hindsight, I can see that this may have influenced how quickly I moved from fasting for 36hr with 500 cal to just doing water fasts. When I start something new, I tend to be very 'enthusiastic' and impatient, so once I thought there might be a quicker or more effective way to fast, then nothing else would do. No regrets at all on doing the liquid fasts by the way, just trying to show that I very quickly modified 5:2 as a result of info I came across on this site and how influential threads on here can be to newcomers.

Going from constantly stuffing my face and feeling horribly bloated, the feeling of being hungry and slim (even though I'm far from it yet) was a revelation and felt so good. Discovering that i wouldnt pass out or waste away if i didnt eat for a day was very liberating and gave me a new feeling of control over eating that i'd never felt before and i can understand why people then go looking to experiment more with the fasting, as it certainly made me curious.

With that in mind, I can see why people are concerned that threads discussing extended fasting could be very triggering for some people. Especially when the person that is fasting is losing large amounts of weight very quickly by drinking water / exercising every day, seemingly with no ill effects and even describing feelings of euphoria and well-being.

I know that this forum isn't responsible for the choices that individuals make, but it makes me feel quite uncomfortable that someone might come to this forum with an interest in 5:2 fasting (which is thus far proving to be a healthy and sustainable way of losing weight and improving health) and then as a result of information they come across on this site, ending up doing extended fasts and developing some very unhealthy habits and possibly a very serious/ life-threatening eating disorder. The problem being that people are often in the thick of such illnesses before they even realise what's happening.

Although i found the discussions about extended fasting very interesting, I think it best if they are not discussed on here and somehow misinterpreted as having the same benefits/side effects as intermittent fasting or appearing to be endorsed by the forum. This site is for intermittent fasting, so lets keep it simple for everyone and stick with that.
If people want to find out about extended fasting, I'm sure google will throw up plenty of information and alternative sites.

Well done to Moogie and the other moderators for addressing this issue in such a sensitive and thoughtful way , and giving people the opportunity to have their say.

Emma
xx

I would just like to add that the fact that this issue is being addressed reiterates how responsible this site is and how well it is administered.

Ballerina x

I agree wholeheartedly with Ballerina, we are very fortunate to be involved with and benefit from this responsible forum.
Thank you again Moogie, Caroline and others involved for looking after our community.

I found that particular thread of the 10 day fast disturbing as it unfolded and I am so relieved to see this taking of responsibility by staff/moderators to put some preventative parameters in place.

I have found the support I feel I have received in accessing the Forum has been fabulous and has prolonged my adherence to 5:2 in a time when I could easily have given up on this approach. This Forum is invaluable so I definitely want to see it protected while being responsible to provide moderate information to people who may be vulnerable

Re Poll: I tossed up between 1 and 6 and eventually chose 6 due to this timely response and well considered and prepared discussion for the forum community. Thank you Moogie and the team your efforts much appreciated as per usual

Well I did a double vote - 1 & 5. Because I think having a separate forum for those interested in extended fasts AND zero cal fasts could go there. 1 because it is mostly what I am interested in. I have to say that when I read the book it said fast days were 25% of normal (feed day) calories, about 500 for women and 600 for men. I am sure there was no intention of 0-500 (up to 500 cals) - I can't check as a friend has borrowed the book. So I felt there could also be a risk of those with eating disorders (well those that severely restrict calories - as opposed to ones like me who just think about food all the time!) doing 'liquid fasts' if they were consuming no cals - then it's 4:3 no cals, then ADF no cals. I'm sure it's fine for the majority of people, but once again I don't think it is what 'THE FAST DIET' is about.

I also feel strongly about the more and more posts about longer fasts, water-fasting and all these extremes. We have been warned of the real dangers or crash diets of any kind.
In browsing this lovely forum I see how many posts deviate from the main focus of 5:2 and its variants.
Brilliant technical, moral, encouraging, positive and supportive chatting for 5:2,ADF, 4:3 fasters is found here and I have stopped looking (out of curiosity and alarm) at the extremes. It distracts from focus on my new-found sustainability and it takes time to ignore them!
I appreciate all the posts about this issue and thank the moderators for stepping in. I am truly relieved because this particular WOE gives hope where crash diets of any kind do not.
I am voting for 1, at the same time trust the judgment of our sensible moderators.

I was very grateful and relieved that the mods pulled the 10 day fasting thread. I would like to add my thanks to all the mods for their hard work and willingness to intervene. Its great to be part of a community that cares about others.

Dicussion about long fasts is very concerning. I am worried however about what behavior we might drive underground. Whether this is best managed by a separate forum I would welcome opinion on. I havent explored the online world of longer fasting/dieting but suspect it doesnt need another place for people whose thinking about body image and weight is disordered to gather and exchange tips.

Im not clear about what happens if there is a post on extended fasting once the vote is counted and as seems likely from the comments extended fast discussion excluded.

Do they get the warning post? Are they removed? Will they be engaged with and given advice that they probably wont like and wont listen to?

I would like to see the warning that will go on discussion of extended fasting more strongly worded, with a statement about the dangers, and not rely on readers clicking the link.

I vote for option 1 but like others also trust the mods who have proven their ability read the mood of this community and make wise choices.

Having read this considered topic, with its sensible discussion, I am very glad I have time to think before I vote.
I see people regularly who worry greatly about their weight (as a clinical hypnotherapist). Being overweight is a weighty issue(!)and as many of us know, often carries a heavy emotional as well as physical burden. The intensity of emotion attached to being overweight is often not in direct proportion to the number of KGs the person has to lose.
We all love feeling slimmer and healthier and thanks to 52 lots of us getting to enjoy that But for some people, self-esteem and good feelings are incredibly strongly linked to their weight on the scales and that can make that person very vulnerable.
Having said all of that, I love the variety of topics here and the range of comments. There are fantastic contributors who make the forum so supportive and informative and the 'nanny' idea of restricting posts seems limiting.
Balancing it up, if you read some of the extended fasting posts with different eyes, consider a desperate and vulnerable person who believes that losing weight is her/his only hope to get rid of bad feelings then my vote has to fall on the side of caution.
Mmmm I've got some thinking to do.....

I'm glad this has come up for discussion and thanks to Moogie and the moderators for such a considered post. I have varying feelings for which way to vote, and in the end I've gone for 1. I know that for myself I can read these posts in safety as I'm able to apply commonsense to them, but for others they might just encourage them down a dangerous route. I missed the 10 day fast thread, but have been alarmed at some of the other threads that seem to have been getting more extreme.

I'm quoting from the book here:
"if you are already extremely lean or suffering from an eating disorder, fasting of any description is not advised."

For those vulnerable to anorexia, then some of these messages would encourage them. I particularly noted that some of those actually trying the more extreme methods were already in the healthy BMI range, and indeed some of them were at the bottom of the healthy range. I'm concerned that they may not realise it, but may themselves be heading for anorexia. The language used in some cases was certainly that of an addictive person. There was a lack of balance in terms of positive versus negative effects. We must remember that these forums can be read without being a member, so apart from the known membership, there is a great deal of passing traffic, who may find one of the dangerous threads via a Google search and never read around the other more balanced threads.

I note that so far not many of us have voted, so I hope my message will have bumped this back up the active list so more people see it.

Given the quote from Dr. Longo above, "a prolonged fast is an extreme intervention. If it's done well, it can be very powerful in your favour. If it's done improperly, it can be very powerful against you," I find that we really, really need to distinguish prolonged fasting from intermittent fasting and say that the primary focus of this forum is on intermittent fasting and that prolonged fasting is a distraction.

Good point BruceE, that sums up my position.

Although i found the discussions about extended fasting very interesting, I think it best if they are not discussed on here and somehow misinterpreted as having the same benefits/side effects as intermittent fasting or appearing to be endorsed by the forum. This site is for intermittent fasting, so lets keep it simple for everyone and stick with that.
If people want to find out about extended fasting, I'm sure google will throw up plenty of information and alternative sites.

Extended fasting is dangerous unless properly medically supervised. It has nothing to do with the 5:2 way of life. I think a statement should be made by the moderators to this effect. Extended fasts are off subject. I do not think we should remain silent on this issue. I change my vote to 1

I voted for 1; I only do the 36hrs which I think of as a one day fast.

I was getting increasingly uncomfortable when reading about people with heathly bmi's talking about long zero cal fasts and the buzz they were getting.
I felt younger less experienced people reading that may follow without considering the health benefits.
If it had continued I may have left; definitely if it became a main focus of the forum; which was the way things were heading

I voted option 1.
5:2 is the reason we are all using this forum. There are lots of other outlets with other suggestions as to how to lose weight, but the 5:2 Fast diet, as explained by Dr M. has the unique factor of eating usual foodstuffs for any 5 days per week, and restricting calories to 25% for the other 2 days. The fact that many of us are changing the boundaries to experiment with other techniques is acknowledged, as shown by all the topics now being aired. However, although I fall into this category, (by now adopting a very low carbohydrate intake), I feel that the only postings should be in regard to advancing the initial theory. I suspect many of us just wanted to see results happen quickly, and so have adopted other systems, but so long as we continue to restrict calories for 2 days every week, then we are following the guidelines.
My first thought, back in January, was merely to see if I lost weight. But after reading the book that weekend, I realised that there may be a chance of at least minimising the risks of my type 2 diabetes, which I felt was raging out of control, and Dr M.'s book stimulated me to research much further, hence my interest in low carbohyrate intake. I hope I have been careful in my postings, not to unduly influence anyone one way or the other, but I can see that there could be a problem by allowing our 'stories', without any way of checking their authenticity.
I hope my contribution is useful in helping you to come to a decision as to what you ultimately want to portray on this excellent forum.