Intermittent Fasting Question
fitbritt128
Posts: 35 Member
So I'm curious to try IF. I want to try the 5:2 method, eating 500 calories twice a week.
If I workout on the day I fast, can I eat those calories? So, if I run and earn 300 calories, can I eat 800 instead of just 500?
Thanks in advance!
If I workout on the day I fast, can I eat those calories? So, if I run and earn 300 calories, can I eat 800 instead of just 500?
Thanks in advance!
2
Replies
-
Technically 5:2 is not a form of fasting. It just got lumped in with the other number colon number variations. The "rules" for this type of eating are made up. You should consider them guidelines to get started and make up your own rules for what works best for you.
It makes sense to me to eat your exercise calories on your low calorie days or use those days as rest days.
0 -
fitbritt128 wrote: »So I'm curious to try IF. I want to try the 5:2 method, eating 500 calories twice a week.
If I workout on the day I fast, can I eat those calories? So, if I run and earn 300 calories, can I eat 800 instead of just 500?
Thanks in advance!
Anyone I've known who did 5:2 scheduled rest days on the 2 fast days. At least when you start, I would do that and give your system a chance to get used to the low cal days. You might find yourself suffering some serious fatigue if you attempt to do strenuous exercise on days you aren't eating much, even if you do eat back the calories.5 -
"If I workout on the day I fast, can I eat those calories? So, if I run and earn 300 calories, can I eat 800 instead of just 500?"
In a word - no.
It was intended that you just eat 500 cals on the fasting days and "eat normally" on the five other days a a week.
In MyFitnessPal terms that would be two 500 cal days and no eating back exercise calories (you may find exercising hard anyway on those days) and for the five days set your calorie goal to maintain current weight, that calorie goal is plus exercise cals.
PS - yes despite what a poster above says 5:2 is technically and in reality a form of fasting as fasting encompasses restriction as well as exclusion.9 -
PS - yes despite what a poster above says 5:2 is technically and in reality a form of fasting as fasting encompasses restriction as well as exclusion.
But then by that logic everyone who is in any type of calorie deficit is fasting which makes the use of the term more ambiguous. I won't argue the point but I disagree and as a person who actually fasts on occasion for religious purposes I am not fond of all this definition trampling.5 -
@NovusDiesPS - yes despite what a poster above says 5:2 is technically and in reality a form of fasting as fasting encompasses restriction as well as exclusion.
But then by that logic everyone who is in any type of calorie deficit is fasting which makes the use of the term more ambiguous. I won't argue the point but I disagree and as a person who actually fasts on occasion for religious purposes I am not fond of all this definition trampling.
I'm not trampling on definitions - I'm using definitions that appear in dictionaries. That's my logic - using a common and recognised meaning of words. Feel free to assign your own meaning or ignore the parts of definitions that contradict you but that leads to confusion not clarity.
Fasting has a large range and scope from time restriction, to food type restriction to alternate day to nil by mouth before surgery etc. to fasting for religious or spiritual reasons.
One example: (from dictionary.com)
verb (used without object)
to abstain from all food.
to eat only sparingly or of certain kinds of food, especially as a religious observance.
verb (used with object)
to cause to abstain entirely from or limit food; put on a fast:
to fast a patient for a day before surgery.
noun
an abstinence from food, or a limiting of one's food, especially when voluntary and as a religious observance; fasting.
a day or period of fasting.
4 -
@NovusDiesPS - yes despite what a poster above says 5:2 is technically and in reality a form of fasting as fasting encompasses restriction as well as exclusion.
But then by that logic everyone who is in any type of calorie deficit is fasting which makes the use of the term more ambiguous. I won't argue the point but I disagree and as a person who actually fasts on occasion for religious purposes I am not fond of all this definition trampling.
I'm not trampling on definitions - I'm using definitions that appear in dictionaries. That's my logic - using a common and recognised meaning of words. Feel free to assign your own meaning or ignore the parts of definitions that contradict you but that leads to confusion not clarity.
Fasting has a large range and scope from time restriction, to food type restriction to alternate day to nil by mouth before surgery etc. to fasting for religious or spiritual reasons.
One example: (from dictionary.com)
verb (used without object)
to abstain from all food.
to eat only sparingly or of certain kinds of food, especially as a religious observance.
verb (used with object)
to cause to abstain entirely from or limit food; put on a fast:
to fast a patient for a day before surgery.
noun
an abstinence from food, or a limiting of one's food, especially when voluntary and as a religious observance; fasting.
a day or period of fasting.
I re-bolded part of your definition. In a long term fast it is customary to eat on a specific day, specific hours, or specific food. It is generally part of a religious observance or protest.
Sparingly means restricted. So I go back to my original point that if I choose to eat less today (which I do) am I fasting?
To say that 5:2 is fasting is a dilution of the term fasting even if you can find a way to make it fit. So maybe I am wrong that it is technically fasting but then so is choosing not to eat a cookie one day because you restricted yourself.
Intermittent fasting in of itself is ridiculous terminology because I don't know anyone who eats nonstop. If everyone intermittently fasts then there is no point in calling it that.
What this boils down to is trying to make something mundane into something special. A calorie deficit is sexier when you call it fasting. Skipping breakfast is sexier if you call it intermittent fasting. Personally I am okay with things that are ordinary just being ordinary.6 -
Fasting is a general catch-all term for food restrictions or abstinence.
A bit like "science" and "art" are catch-all terms that encompass very wide scopes.
Yes it is mundane and I don't see that as a bad thing as it brings a sense of perspective to what is predominately just an eating pattern. I actually dislike all the woo that IF seems to attract - especially recently as it's very fashionable but the 5:2 book also contributed to that. Fasting has no special meaning to me beyond the dictionary definition - not good, bad or special, not sexy, not proper fasting or diluted fasting.
Periods of severe restriction whether 5:2 or ADF protocols fit the definition of both words intermittent and of fasting - doesn't make them better or worse than other eating patterns beyond personal preference. To me that's just an accurate use of language.
As a natural breakfast skipper I have tried (and disliked) the 16:8 style of IF and have no issue if people call that pattern fasting as it is imposing a strict rule around eating that doesn't exist if you simply, like me, skip breakfast when I feel like it and eat first thing in the morning if I feel like eating.
If your Doctor (not Dr Michael Mosley, author of "5:2 Intermittent Fasting The Fast Diet") wants to draw blood from you in a fasted state tomorrow morning and says no food after 8pm then yes you would be fasting for that period. I wouldn't think you were ridiculous for saying I'm fasting until the morning, just descriptive. Certainly not sexy.
BTW - Would you feel offended if someone described your religious fast as ridiculous?
5 -
Fasting is a general catch-all term for food restrictions or abstinence.
A bit like "science" and "art" are catch-all terms that encompass very wide scopes.
Yes it is mundane and I don't see that as a bad thing as it brings a sense of perspective to what is predominately just an eating pattern. I actually dislike all the woo that IF seems to attract - especially recently as it's very fashionable but the 5:2 book also contributed to that. Fasting has no special meaning to me beyond the dictionary definition - not good, bad or special, not sexy, not proper fasting or diluted fasting.
Periods of severe restriction whether 5:2 or ADF protocols fit the definition of both words intermittent and of fasting - doesn't make them better or worse than other eating patterns beyond personal preference. To me that's just an accurate use of language.
As a natural breakfast skipper I have tried (and disliked) the 16:8 style of IF and have no issue if people call that pattern fasting as it is imposing a strict rule around eating that doesn't exist if you simply, like me, skip breakfast when I feel like it and eat first thing in the morning if I feel like eating.
If your Doctor (not Dr Michael Mosley, author of "5:2 Intermittent Fasting The Fast Diet") wants to draw blood from you in a fasted state tomorrow morning and says no food after 8pm then yes you would be fasting for that period. I wouldn't think you were ridiculous for saying I'm fasting until the morning, just descriptive. Certainly not sexy.
BTW - Would you feel offended if someone described your religious fast as ridiculous?
It is unnecessary. I ate in a calorie deficit today. It doesn't make it more accurate to call it a fast it makes it more trendy.
When your doctor tells you to be in a fasted state does he/she mean to only eat 500 calories? No. It is generally understood that it means to eat nothing after a specific time. This is a good reason to cut out the confusion by just calling the 2 in the 5:2 low calorie days which is more accurate and easier to understand. If you tell someone that you are fasting today and they see you eat then you have to explain that it is technically fasting. If a person enjoys calling attention to themselves they may enjoy explaining how it is fasting. I would hate it.
On your last question: I am not easily offended so I wouldn't care if someone called it ridiculous.5 -
Fasting is a general catch-all term for food restrictions or abstinence.
A bit like "science" and "art" are catch-all terms that encompass very wide scopes.
Yes it is mundane and I don't see that as a bad thing as it brings a sense of perspective to what is predominately just an eating pattern. I actually dislike all the woo that IF seems to attract - especially recently as it's very fashionable but the 5:2 book also contributed to that. Fasting has no special meaning to me beyond the dictionary definition - not good, bad or special, not sexy, not proper fasting or diluted fasting.
Periods of severe restriction whether 5:2 or ADF protocols fit the definition of both words intermittent and of fasting - doesn't make them better or worse than other eating patterns beyond personal preference. To me that's just an accurate use of language.
As a natural breakfast skipper I have tried (and disliked) the 16:8 style of IF and have no issue if people call that pattern fasting as it is imposing a strict rule around eating that doesn't exist if you simply, like me, skip breakfast when I feel like it and eat first thing in the morning if I feel like eating.
If your Doctor (not Dr Michael Mosley, author of "5:2 Intermittent Fasting The Fast Diet") wants to draw blood from you in a fasted state tomorrow morning and says no food after 8pm then yes you would be fasting for that period. I wouldn't think you were ridiculous for saying I'm fasting until the morning, just descriptive. Certainly not sexy.
BTW - Would you feel offended if someone described your religious fast as ridiculous?
I don't know what religion NovusDies practices, but I personally consider my own religion's definition of fasting to be ridiculous, as it allows the consumption of one normal meal and two smaller meals that together do not add up to a regular meal.
Edited to fix subject-verb agreement.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Fasting is a general catch-all term for food restrictions or abstinence.
A bit like "science" and "art" are catch-all terms that encompass very wide scopes.
Yes it is mundane and I don't see that as a bad thing as it brings a sense of perspective to what is predominately just an eating pattern. I actually dislike all the woo that IF seems to attract - especially recently as it's very fashionable but the 5:2 book also contributed to that. Fasting has no special meaning to me beyond the dictionary definition - not good, bad or special, not sexy, not proper fasting or diluted fasting.
Periods of severe restriction whether 5:2 or ADF protocols fit the definition of both words intermittent and of fasting - doesn't make them better or worse than other eating patterns beyond personal preference. To me that's just an accurate use of language.
As a natural breakfast skipper I have tried (and disliked) the 16:8 style of IF and have no issue if people call that pattern fasting as it is imposing a strict rule around eating that doesn't exist if you simply, like me, skip breakfast when I feel like it and eat first thing in the morning if I feel like eating.
If your Doctor (not Dr Michael Mosley, author of "5:2 Intermittent Fasting The Fast Diet") wants to draw blood from you in a fasted state tomorrow morning and says no food after 8pm then yes you would be fasting for that period. I wouldn't think you were ridiculous for saying I'm fasting until the morning, just descriptive. Certainly not sexy.
BTW - Would you feel offended if someone described your religious fast as ridiculous?
I don't know what religion NovusDies practices, but I personally consider my own religion's definition of fasting to be ridiculous, as it allows the consumption of one normal meal and two smaller meals that together do not add up to a regular meal.
Edited to fix subject-verb agreement.
I don't follow an organization so I stick to my own definition which is a 24 - 48 hour juice fast. I haven't done more than 24 in a very long time though and I am reluctant to do any fasting right now because of the long term calorie deficit I have been in. I think I could do it safely with some planning but I haven't yet and I am not sure I will until I am done losing.2 -
Fasting is a general catch-all term for food restrictions or abstinence.
A bit like "science" and "art" are catch-all terms that encompass very wide scopes.
Yes it is mundane and I don't see that as a bad thing as it brings a sense of perspective to what is predominately just an eating pattern. I actually dislike all the woo that IF seems to attract - especially recently as it's very fashionable but the 5:2 book also contributed to that. Fasting has no special meaning to me beyond the dictionary definition - not good, bad or special, not sexy, not proper fasting or diluted fasting.
Periods of severe restriction whether 5:2 or ADF protocols fit the definition of both words intermittent and of fasting - doesn't make them better or worse than other eating patterns beyond personal preference. To me that's just an accurate use of language.
As a natural breakfast skipper I have tried (and disliked) the 16:8 style of IF and have no issue if people call that pattern fasting as it is imposing a strict rule around eating that doesn't exist if you simply, like me, skip breakfast when I feel like it and eat first thing in the morning if I feel like eating.
If your Doctor (not Dr Michael Mosley, author of "5:2 Intermittent Fasting The Fast Diet") wants to draw blood from you in a fasted state tomorrow morning and says no food after 8pm then yes you would be fasting for that period. I wouldn't think you were ridiculous for saying I'm fasting until the morning, just descriptive. Certainly not sexy.
BTW - Would you feel offended if someone described your religious fast as ridiculous?
It is unnecessary. I ate in a calorie deficit today. It doesn't make it more accurate to call it a fast it makes it more trendy.
When your doctor tells you to be in a fasted state does he/she mean to only eat 500 calories? No. It is generally understood that it means to eat nothing after a specific time. This is a good reason to cut out the confusion by just calling the 2 in the 5:2 low calorie days which is more accurate and easier to understand. If you tell someone that you are fasting today and they see you eat then you have to explain that it is technically fasting. If a person enjoys calling attention to themselves they may enjoy explaining how it is fasting. I would hate it.
On your last question: I am not easily offended so I wouldn't care if someone called it ridiculous.
Of course it's unnecessary to do 5:2 or any form or IF (no-one said it was so don't know who you think you are arguing against - Mr Strawman perhaps?). Just like an everyday deficit is also unecessary. That's where personal choice comes in. That it isn't your choice doesn't invalidate it for others.
I find it really sad that you feel compelled to insult people with snide comments just because they choose a different way to create a calorie deficit to your chosen method.
BTW - when I did 5:2 I never met anyone who didn't understand that fasting doesn't exclusively mean eating nothing. Maybe different cultural diversity and education applies where I live?
Hope the OP got the answer she wanted and wish her every success.3 -
Fasting is a general catch-all term for food restrictions or abstinence.
A bit like "science" and "art" are catch-all terms that encompass very wide scopes.
Yes it is mundane and I don't see that as a bad thing as it brings a sense of perspective to what is predominately just an eating pattern. I actually dislike all the woo that IF seems to attract - especially recently as it's very fashionable but the 5:2 book also contributed to that. Fasting has no special meaning to me beyond the dictionary definition - not good, bad or special, not sexy, not proper fasting or diluted fasting.
Periods of severe restriction whether 5:2 or ADF protocols fit the definition of both words intermittent and of fasting - doesn't make them better or worse than other eating patterns beyond personal preference. To me that's just an accurate use of language.
As a natural breakfast skipper I have tried (and disliked) the 16:8 style of IF and have no issue if people call that pattern fasting as it is imposing a strict rule around eating that doesn't exist if you simply, like me, skip breakfast when I feel like it and eat first thing in the morning if I feel like eating.
If your Doctor (not Dr Michael Mosley, author of "5:2 Intermittent Fasting The Fast Diet") wants to draw blood from you in a fasted state tomorrow morning and says no food after 8pm then yes you would be fasting for that period. I wouldn't think you were ridiculous for saying I'm fasting until the morning, just descriptive. Certainly not sexy.
BTW - Would you feel offended if someone described your religious fast as ridiculous?
It is unnecessary. I ate in a calorie deficit today. It doesn't make it more accurate to call it a fast it makes it more trendy.
When your doctor tells you to be in a fasted state does he/she mean to only eat 500 calories? No. It is generally understood that it means to eat nothing after a specific time. This is a good reason to cut out the confusion by just calling the 2 in the 5:2 low calorie days which is more accurate and easier to understand. If you tell someone that you are fasting today and they see you eat then you have to explain that it is technically fasting. If a person enjoys calling attention to themselves they may enjoy explaining how it is fasting. I would hate it.
On your last question: I am not easily offended so I wouldn't care if someone called it ridiculous.
Of course it's unnecessary to do 5:2 or any form or IF (no-one said it was so don't know who you think you are arguing against - Mr Strawman perhaps?). Just like an everyday deficit is also unecessary. That's where personal choice comes in. That it isn't your choice doesn't invalidate it for others.
I find it really sad that you feel compelled to insult people with snide comments just because they choose a different way to create a calorie deficit to your chosen method.
BTW - when I did 5:2 I never met anyone who didn't understand that fasting doesn't exclusively mean eating nothing. Maybe different cultural diversity and education applies where I live?
Hope the OP got the answer she wanted and wish her every success.
I meant calling it fasting is unnecessary not the practice of 5:2 itself.
You can be sad but you are misinformed. I haven't insulted anyone for doing 5:2 or any practical application of a calorie deficit. I also do not think that anyone should choose my method just because it works for me.
I do encourage people to think for themselves and not follow arbitrary rules that have no actual bearing on weight loss.2 -
PS - yes despite what a poster above says 5:2 is technically and in reality a form of fasting as fasting encompasses restriction as well as exclusion.
But then by that logic everyone who is in any type of calorie deficit is fasting which makes the use of the term more ambiguous. I won't argue the point but I disagree and as a person who actually fasts on occasion for religious purposes I am not fond of all this definition trampling.
By your logic, people don’t “fast” during Ramadan - because they do eat in the early morning and evening - they are consuming calories each day - which doesn’t fit your definition of fasting.
More logically, there are many different fasting protocols and people do it for different reasons with different guidelines and have done so for thousands of years using the word “fasting”. 5:2 is one such method, as is Ramadan, which both involve consuming some calories.
When not consuming any calories, from a dietary perspective, it tends to be called “water fasting” to indicate nothing else is consumed. Religious practices may call it something else.
3 -
-
PS - yes despite what a poster above says 5:2 is technically and in reality a form of fasting as fasting encompasses restriction as well as exclusion.
But then by that logic everyone who is in any type of calorie deficit is fasting which makes the use of the term more ambiguous. I won't argue the point but I disagree and as a person who actually fasts on occasion for religious purposes I am not fond of all this definition trampling.
By your logic, people don’t “fast” during Ramadan - because they do eat in the early morning and evening - they are consuming calories each day - which doesn’t fit your definition of fasting.
More logically, there are many different fasting protocols and people do it for different reasons with different guidelines and have done so for thousands of years using the word “fasting”. 5:2 is one such method, as is Ramadan, which both involve consuming some calories.
When not consuming any calories, from a dietary perspective, it tends to be called “water fasting” to indicate nothing else is consumed. Religious practices may call it something else.
Ramadan definitely fits my definition of fasting. Being in a routine calorie deficit may technically fit the definition but it is a stretch to call it that.2 -
PS - yes despite what a poster above says 5:2 is technically and in reality a form of fasting as fasting encompasses restriction as well as exclusion.
But then by that logic everyone who is in any type of calorie deficit is fasting which makes the use of the term more ambiguous. I won't argue the point but I disagree and as a person who actually fasts on occasion for religious purposes I am not fond of all this definition trampling.
By your logic, people don’t “fast” during Ramadan - because they do eat in the early morning and evening - they are consuming calories each day - which doesn’t fit your definition of fasting.
More logically, there are many different fasting protocols and people do it for different reasons with different guidelines and have done so for thousands of years using the word “fasting”. 5:2 is one such method, as is Ramadan, which both involve consuming some calories.
When not consuming any calories, from a dietary perspective, it tends to be called “water fasting” to indicate nothing else is consumed. Religious practices may call it something else.
Ramadan definitely fits my definition of fasting. Being in a routine calorie deficit may technically fit the definition but it is a stretch to call it that.
IMO...A religious fast and a dietary fast are two different things. I don't do religious fasts but if I did I believe that one should follow the rules set by their religion.
A dietary fast however is for your own personal reasons. However you define that dietary fast is also personal...setting your own rules to follow. You can call it whatever you like.
If calling skipping breakfast a fast helps someone psychologically to adhere to their dietary needs then what difference to anyone else should that make. It shouldn't matter to anyone else if it tramples their definition of fasting(especially if their definition is religion based). Ordinary...most of life is ordinary if you think about it. So if someone does a 5:2 or 16:8 IF and it makes their day seem a little less ordinary by calling it a fast then it shouldn't affect anyone else.
We all have our unique way of doing life and unless it is something that causes harm to others then why should it matter?
There is IMO one other type of fast...a spiritual one...separate and different from a religious one. One might not be religious but they can be spiritual. These types of fasts...IMO...one can also have their own set of rules. They are after all not claiming to be doing it in the name of any god.
I had a great great uncle that fasted every Wednesday. This was many many years before fasting became main streamed. I don't know why he fasted nor did he feel the need to explain it to anyone. I remember as a little girl him telling me that he was watching his figure. I doubted that but didn't push the issue. I am sure that he had his reasons and following that fast brought him some sense of peace.
My thoughts are whether I agree with someone doing 5:2 or 16:8 and it helps them by calling it a fast then who am I to tell them that they have it all wrong or what they are doing is...ordinary. Life is about finding solutions to help you get through it even if it doesn't match someone elses definition.3 -
Calling a normal dietary calorie restriction a fast seems to do far more harm than good judging by the threads that are always showing up about it. People should not be asking for permission to eat food or eat food outside of a arbitrary window when there is no immediate medical need or religious attachment to it.
2 -
I like my own personal methodology behind fasting. I fast if/when I feel the need for religious reasons, but don't tell anyone I'm fasting, or medical reasons as I had to recently, in which case I tell everyone because my family is food insane and I don't want them to offer me any
and if anyone else tells me they're fasting, or are going to, I wish them the best.
Most folks I know who may, or do fast, are adults. That means I don't need to do anything to dissuade, or define, or urge on...they get hungry enough, they'll eat. If they're determined enough, they won't.
So easy
2 -
Normal...what is normal? Normal compare to what you do...what I do?
Harmful how? I saw nothing harmful about the question that the OP asked. I wouldn't have asked that question but I rarely if ever ask a stranger's opinion of my personal dietary needs or any other matter. However I am just one of those highly independent people that would rather spend hours researching for my own answers than take the word of a stranger I suppose.
I don't think the OP was asking permission to eat her exercise calories I think she had a thought and just wanted to see how other people felt. As we read there are different opinions. I think that there are so many times on here that people have said...Eat your exercise calories that I think she just wanted to know if that same theory applied to low calorie days on 5:2.
I am curious why this topic seems to be so important to you. I have read several of your other posts and you seem like you are a nice guy. I think that is why I was surprised that you took this adamant of a stand about other people's ideas about fasting.2 -
A normal calorie deficit is something that you do for many months for weight management.
I am not adamant about anything with regards to this topic. I am merely commenting.
Given the fail rate of diets and my desire to see everyone succeed I don't like to see a person putting themselves through unnecessary restrictions. The OP in this case was a light case. I have seen many and the usual scenario is that life got in the way and kept them from eating inside their "window". I see many others worried about things like coffee with cream and sweetener breaking their fast and some now suggesting they test their blood sugar to make sure they are still fasting. Ridiculous. This is why I don't like the fancy labels because they make the "rules" seem more important than the goal which IS the calorie deficit for people losing.
I want everyone to understand they can make up their own plan and that even eating outside their plan on occasion is perfectly fine. They can take an idea like 5:2 and change it around to suit their needs.
ETA: There is no reason to insult me by calling me nice.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions