Fasting Diets (thoughts?)
Options
Replies
-
@Dr_Girlfriend a 3000 calorie deficit is hardly extreme. It's less than a pound a week. And with regards to sedentary vs active, that's what the other 5 days are for. If a person is that concerned about their workouts, add 100 calories to the fast days, not a big deal. Doesn't matter what calorie restriction method one uses strength training and higher protein intake is always the recommendation to minimize muscle loss. 5:2 done properly isn't going to increase muscle loss more than other diets. It doesn't have to make sense to you for it to still be effective.7
-
I did IF5:2 for several months when a crazy schedule made it really hard to have dinner at a sane hour two nights a week. It was such a relief not to worry about it! And I had awesome workouts on my low days. I always feel fine on low days. It's the day AFTER a low day that I might feel a little depleted. When my schedule returned to "normal" I went back to IF8:16 which is more comfortable for me.
As others have said, many people have success with IF5:2, and it is not disordered for them at all. Try it for a couple weeks to see how it fits you. It's really the only way to know. I think it is helpful to have an experimental attitude and to make your own observations. Best of luck, OP!2 -
@Dr_Girlfriend a 3000 calorie deficit is hardly extreme. It's less than a pound a week. And with regards to sedentary vs active, that's what the other 5 days are for. If a person is that concerned about their workouts, add 100 calories to the fast days, not a big deal. Doesn't matter what calorie restriction method one uses strength training and higher protein intake is always the recommendation to minimize muscle loss. 5:2 done properly isn't going to increase muscle loss more than other diets. It doesn't have to make sense to you for it to still be effective.
I agree, I'm confused why a 3000+ deficit is being called extreme. A 1 lb a week rate of loss is perfectly acceptable for anyone who has more than 15 lbs total to lose at least.
And it doesn't recommend the same calories for everyone, because you eat at maintenance the other 5 days of the week, and maintenance is going to be different for everyone. Someone smaller with less weight to lose will be eating say 1900 cals on non-fast days, someone larger or more active could be eating 3,000 cals on non-fast days.
And lots of people look at their deficit for the week rather than daily anyway (eating very light during the week so they can eat out or have a couple of beers on the weekend). Maybe not quite so dramatically, but your body doesn't need a regimented amount of calories during each 24 hour period, as long as it's getting enough over time.4 -
I think the idea that a 3000 cal deficit is extreme is because usually when people talk about calorie deficits, they mean per day.
Totally curious guys, if you eat 1600 a day using IF, or 1600 a day not on an IF schedule, would there be any difference in weight-loss? I understand what IF is, but I'm not sure if would make much of a difference.0 -
jennifer907 wrote: »I think the idea that a 3000 cal deficit is extreme is because usually when people talk about calorie deficits, they mean per day.
Totally curious guys, if you eat 1600 a day using IF, or 1600 a day not on an IF schedule, would there be any difference in weight-loss? I understand what IF is, but I'm not sure if would make much of a difference.
It's often discussed per week: 3500/week = 1 lb; 7000/week = 2 lb.
As for your question, if calories are the same it shouldn't matter, but here the question is overall weekly deficit doing a different sort of IF, 5:2.
The one guy seems to be saying that his maintenance is 3500, so 500 per day would be extreme for him, as he would have a daily deficit of 3000. That's probably true (although the idea that he would be passed out from one day at 500 makes no sense to me, I don't think it's that big a deal for a human to even not eat at all for a day, although I would not recommend it as a weight loss technique). The 500 is based on eating about 25% of maintenance. It's a 3000/week deficit in that case. If maintenance is 3500, then eating around 875 or so would be more reasonable (although depending on how much you have to lose a 6000/week deficit is not necessarily extreme anyway).0 -
It's called 5:2 and is a viable way of going about things...though I know I would fail miserably given my usual calorie requirements.
I would rethink exercising on 500 calorie days though and just take it easy on those days and exercise the other 5 days.
0 -
As above, if your calorie requirements are 3500+ calories per day then you'd probably not really have reason to IF because you can eat pretty freely as long as you're tracking.
A small not very active female can use 5:2 as a way to make their weekly calories work better for them.
It's not dangerous. It's not unhealthy.
I personally also wouldn't workout on fasting days, or at the very least not do anything cardio heavy but others adapt just fine. I run fasted when I can be bothered to run so it's no different really.
I 16:8 currently. Gave 5:2 a bash a few years ago but very half heartedly. I wouldn't be averse to trying again at some point, particularly once I am very close to the last few vanity pounds, might be an easier way to manage my intake.3 -
jennifer907 wrote: »I think the idea that a 3000 cal deficit is extreme is because usually when people talk about calorie deficits, they mean per day.
Totally curious guys, if you eat 1600 a day using IF, or 1600 a day not on an IF schedule, would there be any difference in weight-loss? I understand what IF is, but I'm not sure if would make much of a difference.
Yes, you'd have a larger deficit because you're eating 1100 fewer calories twice a week. The idea is that you only eat lower on two days a week and that's where your weekly deficit comes from, the other days are maintenance.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »jennifer907 wrote: »I think the idea that a 3000 cal deficit is extreme is because usually when people talk about calorie deficits, they mean per day.
Totally curious guys, if you eat 1600 a day using IF, or 1600 a day not on an IF schedule, would there be any difference in weight-loss? I understand what IF is, but I'm not sure if would make much of a difference.
Yes, you'd have a larger deficit because you're eating 1100 fewer calories twice a week. The idea is that you only eat lower on two days a week and that's where your weekly deficit comes from, the other days are maintenance.
Yes. Just to clarify, because I think some might be assuming IF means the eating window form of fasting and not understanding that 5:2 is a different method of IF:
5:2 is a kind of IF where you eat at maintenance (or whatever you want without tracking, if that works for you -- this is what my friend does when at maintenance) for 5 days per week, and then around 25% of maintenance calories (500 as an easy close-enough goal for many women) on 2 days. That means you get to eat 2000 on 5 days per week, even when dieting, have a 1500 cal deficit on 2 days, and -- in this hypothetical -- a weekly deficit of about 3000 calories (less than a lb a week, so not extreme). Some find it easier to just eat very light on two days and have much more flexibility on 5.
The eating window IF means you eat for a specific number of hours per day (18:6 is a common one), but within the window would eat your planned calories -- here let's say you aim for 1 lb/week loss so eat about 1500. You have the same deficit with or without IF, it's just a matter of when you eat the calories.
The people saying it's extreme are referring to the low days in a 5:2 plan, but over the course of the week it really is not at all. My only issue with 5:2 is that some do it incorrectly and eat, say, 1200 on the 5 days and 500 on the 2, and of course that's a terrible idea. OP doesn't seem to be doing that, and for some it's an easier way to lose and the low days aren't that much of a hardship.
Sorry to everyone who knows all this -- I could be wrong, but there seemed to be some confusion upthread.5 -
Note that as written in the 5:2 Fast Diet book, for men the "fast" days are 600 cals not the 500 women are allocated.
I think that it's also sensible that when running 5:2 you monitor calories (at least some of the time) to ensure that you are neither overcompensating on your "fed" days and blowing your deficit out of the water, or indeed under eating.0 -
Dr__Girlfriend wrote: »Let's just start with the fact that it "recommends" 500 calories for everyone - regardless of age, height, activity, weight, medical concerns, etc... Such extreme restriction is simply unnecessary. For most people, fad diets will get cause them to lose lots of water weight, and encourage disordered eating.
There is nothing horribly restrictive about this. 500 calories one or two days a week while eating normally otherwise is a perfectly reasonable way to establish a calorie deficit. I personally prefer the approach of a true 24 hour fast one or two non-consecutive days each week, and eating normally, that is, at maintenance, the other days.1 -
Dr__Girlfriend wrote: »I did IF for 6+ years, up until last month actually. It really just became habit. I gained weight on it, but that's due to a million reasons. It's definitely not a cure-all or fix-all. It's just another way of eating that for some people effects CICO. I started eating breakfast again and my brain is much happier, and my lifts are much stronger. Diets are cute and fun, they switch things up and there's no harm in trying them - but they are often wrongly touted as a panacea.
Rybo, I'm interested in you lumping 5:2 into Intermittent Fasting - did Martin Berkhan also advocate for 5:2? I followed his lean-gains protocol for years, as he founded IF, but I never saw him advocate such extreme and aggressive cuts (3000+ calorie deficits)
5:2 just doesn't make sense to me in that it recommends the same amount of calories for someone whose completely sedentary as someone who is extremely active. I lost fat on 5:2, but I lost way more muscle I had worked so hard for.
Op, if 5:2 is working for you and you want to minimize muscle loss, resistance training will help. Don't be afraid of machines!:) And aim for high protein - .8g-1g per lb of lean body weight. This should help keep you from getting skinny fat like I did when I lived on cardio and low cals. It's scary how easy it was to eat so little for so long!
Proud of you for starting this journey with such a level head! As I said before, I can tell you're going to go far:))) you got this!
As much as I like Martin, saying he founded IF would simply be wrong. Also, his particular approach to IF is but one of the many protocols out there. Even Martin, unless he has changed in this, recommends Brad Pilon's book on intermittent fasting called Eat Stop Eat which is not an eating window type of IF, but one or two 24 hour fasts per week while eating normally (that is at maintenance) the other days. Frankly, Brad's form of IF was the one I discovered long before I discovered Lean Gains. For me, the Eat Stop Eat approach works quite well, and yes, even on fast day when just consuming non-caloric liquids, I can still bang out a 2 plus hour bike ride as a fairly vigorous pace.
As for 5:2 not making sense to you, either you are not realizing that they eat at maintenance on the other days, or you are not understanding how the body works. 5:2 will not result in any more muscle loss than any other deficit approach that establishes a similar weekly deficit. The reason 500 calories (and BTW for a male it is 800 calories) are recommended for the 2 days is they are supposed to be fast days, but for those who cannot handle a 24 hour fast, this allows for some calories to be consumed, and if they are mainly veggies, a fair amount of bulk with those calories as well. As I said, for 2 days a week, it really doesn't matter if a person is active or sedentary since that would be accounted for on the the other 5 days where they would eat at maintenance for their activity level. Muscle does not just fall off because a person eat very low calories for one day. If it did people in hunter/gatherer societies in the past would have had a really difficult time of it since they would frequently go for more than 24 hours without large amounts of food, and at the same time be active hunting for that food.
The place most people go wrong with 5:2 is eating at a deficit on their non-fast days. That is a recipe for an excessive deficit, and lots of muscle loss. However, if they do it the way they should, eating at maintenance for their activity level on the 5 days,5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »jennifer907 wrote: »I think the idea that a 3000 cal deficit is extreme is because usually when people talk about calorie deficits, they mean per day.
Totally curious guys, if you eat 1600 a day using IF, or 1600 a day not on an IF schedule, would there be any difference in weight-loss? I understand what IF is, but I'm not sure if would make much of a difference.
Yes, you'd have a larger deficit because you're eating 1100 fewer calories twice a week. The idea is that you only eat lower on two days a week and that's where your weekly deficit comes from, the other days are maintenance.
Yes. Just to clarify, because I think some might be assuming IF means the eating window form of fasting and not understanding that 5:2 is a different method of IF:
5:2 is a kind of IF where you eat at maintenance (or whatever you want without tracking, if that works for you -- this is what my friend does when at maintenance) for 5 days per week, and then around 25% of maintenance calories (500 as an easy close-enough goal for many women) on 2 days. That means you get to eat 2000 on 5 days per week, even when dieting, have a 1500 cal deficit on 2 days, and -- in this hypothetical -- a weekly deficit of about 3000 calories (less than a lb a week, so not extreme). Some find it easier to just eat very light on two days and have much more flexibility on 5.
The eating window IF means you eat for a specific number of hours per day (18:6 is a common one), but within the window would eat your planned calories -- here let's say you aim for 1 lb/week loss so eat about 1500. You have the same deficit with or without IF, it's just a matter of when you eat the calories.
The people saying it's extreme are referring to the low days in a 5:2 plan, but over the course of the week it really is not at all. My only issue with 5:2 is that some do it incorrectly and eat, say, 1200 on the 5 days and 500 on the 2, and of course that's a terrible idea. OP doesn't seem to be doing that, and for some it's an easier way to lose and the low days aren't that much of a hardship.
Sorry to everyone who knows all this -- I could be wrong, but there seemed to be some confusion upthread.
Thanks for the explanation!0 -
Wow this really took off!
A big thank you to everyone who took the time to give me advice and info! I really am a dieting rube so I'm glad there's a community to steer me clear of mistakes. I just got home from a cardio sesh and realized it put me at a calorie deficit today too (one of my non fast days) and thanks to y'all I know I need to heat up some chicken and bump up that cal intake!
You all are stars ✨ For those also on the 5:2 please feel free to friend me! I'd love to have some app friends who are on the same diet track
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions