The FastDay Forum

I know this is asked again and again! But I thought if I just stated what I am doing, kind experts might just say (hopefully), "yup, that's fine"!

I want to lose a bit, not much, about a stone. Basically my weight fluctuates and at the moment it is at the top of where I feel comfortable. Weight loss for me (snd believe me I have lost plenty, formerly a 21 stone lady, down to 10 stone, currently 12 stone, want to be 11 stone) works on 1200 calories a day. So I am not working out TDEE etc as I KNOW 1200 does the trick. But to stick to 1200 with two days of 500 is too low.

So with 5:2. I not seeking to reduce overall intake but to try to get any potential health benefits and to make it easier to stick to an overall average 1200 taken over a week.

So..

I am eating 500 +/- 70 on my fast days. On a 1200 a day diet, that gives me a weekly deficit of 700 X 2 = 1400 So on my non-fast days, I have 1400 to be divided out. So my intake can be 1200 + approx 250-300 = approx 1500 cal a day. (I did calculate TDEE and it is around the 1900 mark)

Does that sound right?? I could stick to 1200 on non-fast days but my feeling is that I shoudn't!

Hi,
Using your aim of 1200 cals per day averaged over a week with 2 fast days, I did the calculation a different way, but arrived at the same conclusion! 1200 cal per day = 8400 call per week (1200x7=8400). Cals consumed on fast days = 1000 (500x2=1000). 8400-1000 =7400 cals left for the other 5 days. 7400 div by 5 = 1480 cals per day. Try it for a few weeks and see how it goes.

I don't know if it is approved or not but it is more or less what I do. I have a lower
TDEE but I suspect it is higher than the one in the progress tracker or I wouldn't be loosing much weight

Kstep wrote: I am eating 500 +/- 70 on my fast days. On a 1200 a day diet, that gives me a weekly deficit of 700 X 2 = 1400 So on my non-fast days, I have 1400 to be divided out. So my intake can be 1200 + approx 250-300 = approx 1500 cal a day. (I did calculate TDEE and it is around the 1900 mark)

Does that sound right?? I could stick to 1200 on non-fast days but my feeling is that I shoudn't!

There is a lot of talk that 3500 calories is 1lb of fat. The problem is if you cut your calories your body will conserve energy - go into starvation mode. Things like: when I fast I get cold feet, others get sleepy and tired, and so on. This is the body conserving energy and mot losing weight. Seems like you have cut your calories right back and your body is in starvation mode. I am not sure how to get out of this trap, I hope the nerds can help.

Sorry I can't be more positive, but I almost think you need to eat more...

Have a look at these threads they might help you

help me find thread: why women can't lose wt on 1200 calorie

And also

article on myth of starvation mode

Hope that helps, best wishes,
Peter

dohpeterchina wrote:

Kstep wrote: I am eating 500 +/- 70 on my fast days. On a 1200 a day diet, that gives me a weekly deficit of 700 X 2 = 1400 So on my non-fast days, I have 1400 to be divided out. So my intake can be 1200 + approx 250-300 = approx 1500 cal a day. (I did calculate TDEE and it is around the 1900 mark)

Does that sound right?? I could stick to 1200 on non-fast days but my feeling is that I shoudn't!

There is a lot of talk that 3500 calories is 1lb of fat. The problem is if you cut your calories your body will conserve energy - go into starvation mode. Things like: when I fast I get cold feet, others get sleepy and tired, and so on. This is the body conserving energy and mot losing weight. Seems like you have cut your calories right back and your body is in starvation mode. I am not sure how to get out of this trap, I hope the nerds can help.

Sorry I can't be more positive, but I almost think you need to eat more...

Oh, no, not in starvation mode. Losing weight happily and constantly. Not the slightest bit concerned about the (very controversial concept) of starvation mode. It is perfectly OK to spend a long time on 1200 calories a day. Most dieticians recommend 1200 for weight loss for people my age and gender. WeightWatchers and most similar programmes go for 1200 a day. If starvation mode really exists (and many doctors say it doesn't) it refers to people going way under 1000 a day.

My question purely related to the effectiveness, on 5:2, of dividing those 1200 calories a day unequally as 500 X 2 days and 1500 X 5 days.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Kate

dohpeterchina wrote: Have a look at these threads they might help you

help me find thread: why women can't lose wt on 1200 calorie

And also

article on myth of starvation mode

Hope that helps, best wishes,
Peter

Thanks, Peter. But I am really not concerned sbout weight loss. It isn't a problem for me. And starvation mode, if there is such a thing, relates to VLCD diets not a healthy 1200 (for weight loss) a day.

Kstep wrote: Thanks, Peter. But I am really not concerned sbout weight loss. It isn't a problem for me. And starvation mode, if there is such a thing, relates to VLCD diets not a healthy 1200 (for weight loss) a day.

Ok, thanks for that. It is good to hear it is all a myth. Thanks for the feedback

Kstep wrote: I am eating 500 +/- 70 on my fast days. On a 1200 a day diet, that gives me a weekly deficit of 700 X 2 = 1400 So on my non-fast days, I have 1400 to be divided out. So my intake can be 1200 + approx 250-300 = approx 1500 cal a day. (I did calculate TDEE and it is around the 1900 mark)

Does that sound right?? I could stick to 1200 on non-fast days but my feeling is that I shoudn't!

It sounds right to me. You should get the same weight loss as if you did 1200 each day but you get the advantages of intermittent fasting. Your TDEE calc suggests that you should still be able to make it work having 1900 cals on non-fast days but obviously any loss would be slower - and the calculation might be wrong. If it has worked for you before with 1200 x 7 = 8400 per week then I think it is wise to stick with that overall number.

dominic wrote:

Kstep wrote: I am eating 500 +/- 70 on my fast days. On a 1200 a day diet, that gives me a weekly deficit of 700 X 2 = 1400 So on my non-fast days, I have 1400 to be divided out. So my intake can be 1200 + approx 250-300 = approx 1500 cal a day. (I did calculate TDEE and it is around the 1900 mark)

Does that sound right?? I could stick to 1200 on non-fast days but my feeling is that I shoudn't!

It sounds right to me. You should get the same weight loss as if you did 1200 each day but you get the advantages of intermittent fasting. Your TDEE calc suggests that you should still be able to make it work having 1900 cals on non-fast days but obviously any loss would be slower - and the calculation might be wrong. If it has worked for you before with 1200 x 7 = 8400 per week then I think it is wise to stick with that overall number.

Thanks!

Starvation mode does exist but it doesn't have a calorie standard. I was on starvation mode by eating under 1200 calories per day, some will need less than 900 and others will need 1500. Since our TDEE is unique, so is the number of calories that each and one of us need to not eat in order to turn our bodies into thinking that it has to hold on to our fat.

What is certainly a myth is that if we don't eat 3.500 we will lose half a kilo of fat. Yes, kilo of fat contains 7.000 calories but nobody guarantees that if we eat 7.000 calories less we will lose a kilo and that kilo will be all fat. If only things were THAT easy...

The starvation mode being a myth thing is perhaps confused by what one might term starvation mode...if you mean some kind of technique whereby you can't lose weight no matter how little you eat, then that is patently nonsense. If however, you mean that the body conserves energy thereby lowering TDEE through a combination of making us less bouncy and active (not counting formal exercise), feeling cold, and other small efficiencies, and at the same time increases appetite and the desirability of food, then yes, it does happen. The debate remains as to how much TDEE decreasesw over what would be expected from the decreased body weight.

I have noticed that my weightloss seems to be fastest when I keep the calories between two extremes, so there is a kind of 'window of opportunity' where I get the best weightloss, which was around an average of 1500 cal per day. I found a study that showed that decreasing calorie intake by 20% below TDEE seemed not to affect metabolism (in this short-term study) but that a decrease of 50% did cause a slowing in metabolism.

There are some that say a slowed metabolism is actually a good thing and might be responsible for the increased longevity seen in various animals kept on a calorie restricted diet.

However, getting back to the OP. If 1200 is what you know works and will bring you down to the 11 stone you want, then go with your calculations for at least a couple of weeks and see what happens before changing anything. At the end of that time, if you are losing weight you must be doing it right, if not you need to rethink!