The FastDay Forum

[janeg]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this so, other mods please move if nec.
With the addition on the TDEE thing on the tracker, quite a number of posters are, understandably surprised at the number suggested- being rather lower than perhaps anticipated.
Now, we are seeing average 1lb per week loss on 5:2 and no significant difference with 4:3
so, if we are to look at reducing calories how does this work. Surely adding another days fasting is the easiest way of reducing intake? But it's not showing any significant difference on the charts.
Does this make sense? (It does in my head)

Am I missing something?

who knows would be my answer. The thing is you can't just say there is little difference between 4:3, 5:2 when u don't know if there is a difference in each individual doing 4:3, 5:2 eg maybe the people doing 4:3 are those who have less to lose, in which case it is likely this group would lose less weight. The only way to compare is if an individual does 5:2 tracks weight loss then does 4:3 and tracks weight loss...or if the groups doing each are the same, then compared. I imagine it would be the same for TDEE - if u test your weight loss by eating less on feed days than u eat on your usual (normal) feed days and compare - if u can handle looking at cals 7 days a week. You really can't use stats on this forum as if it's a scientific study - too many variables.

[carorees]

I expect that if we were able to analyse in detail we'd find that a greater proportion of those doing 4:3 either allow themselves to eat more on their non-fast days than if they were doing 5:2 or have some reason why their weight loss is very slow (e.g., thyroid problems) and so they are generally exceeding their actual TDEE (even if not the calculated TDEE).

Adding an extra fasting day will of course reduce your weekly calories but if your TDEE is low, an extra day on 500 might only reduce your calories by an extra 1000 which is only probably worth 0.143 kg of fat.

If everyone switched to 4:3 and didn't compensate by eating more on non-fast days I think we would see a difference on the tracker.

I think the TDEE guide is most helpful to those who aren't losing. If you are losing, and you're doing it while going considerably over your calculated TDEE, then your actual TDEE is clearly higher. TDEE calculators just give an estimate.

I've been doing 4:3 virtually from when I started this. I average about 2000 cals on my feed days, though sometimes have one day about 2500 cals. I am averaging about 1.81lbs per week loss.

I'm assuming that as I lose more weight, I will need to reduce the calories on feed days, but while I'm still losing weight steadily will stay as I am, as it's obviously working!

[janeg]

hmmmm... food for thought and a wee bit clearer. Was begining to think I was really dense! Ta.

I'm loathe to start counting calories despite my loss being very slow. I know I should do it to get a reference but really don't think I overdo it as I have been a calorie counter and had to drop very low to shift it.
I've added in exercise so we'll see what that does and I may do 4:3 after the next weigh in and keep to the same up day eating to compare for another month.....

For the past two weeks, I have done 4:3 and that is only because I know I have gone overboard with eating. i haven't calorie counted though.

I only noticed the new tdee section on the tracker and I plan to keep an eye for at least the next few feed days and log my food on my fitbit food tracker.

I'm still loosing so that is not a worry. My concern is getting to eat in anormal way on the eating days.

I have been doing 4:3 from the start more or less. I do have a tendency to overeat on normal days or at least I did initially. The 4:3 approach has helped me to learn not to over eat on the "normal" days.

However I did go through a period of a few months where I hardly lost anything or very slowly and then I went to look up my TDEE. I realised I was overeating and needed to cut down as I lost weight. Once I adjusted my eating on normal days then the weight started to come off more quickly again.

I do sometimes overdo it a bit though!

Do we have enough 4:3 people to have a statistically significant view ?

5:2 is working for me (slowly but not that slowly) because it is easy and fitting in with my life. 'I have noted my TDEE and try to stick within this, but I am not going to reduce the 500 calories as that was not the idea set out in MM's book and I am not convinced it is necessary. If I did 4:3 it would start to interfere in my life, ditto if I started eating exactly 395 calories (or whatever) on a fast day (a right fiddle to be that accurate!). Therefore, unless 4:3 and reducing the 500 cals on fast days made a massive difference (and it would have to be significant) it just wouldn't be worth it. I think MM eating plan is designed for endurance which in the end will win the day!

I agree about not changing to less than 500 on a fast day because of the faff of getting that exact number, but if you only eat one meal, as I have been doing, I find that my measured 500 meal is too filling anyway and I can't finish it all.