5:2 'diet' for maintaining?

1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.

Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.

You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.

I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.

I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.

I'm loving the responses.

I've lost close to a 100lbs using IF as my deficit tool, and without calorie counting. I should hit maintainence by late March/early April, and am planning on using 5:2 for maintenance. The amount of calories I'll be able to consume on a 5:2 way of life (those are 2 real fasting days, not low calorie days) on my eating days are almost obscene, even with my relatively low goal weight for a man. If I continue to lose too much weight I'll probably slip in more 6:1 weeks.

The mfp app does, but it's sort of hidden away. My app isn't in english so this might not be correct words. On the sidebar go to 'nutrition' and from there you can see daily nutrition and weekly nutrition in different charts.

1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.

Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.

You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.

I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.

I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.

You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.

But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.

I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.

1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.

Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.

You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.

I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.

I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.

You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.

But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.

I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.

No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.

Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.

1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.

Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.

You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.

I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.

I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.

You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.

But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.

I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.

No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.

Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.

I didn't say it was anyone posting on here.... but you yourself acknowledged that there are people who do. Oh and I didn't say less than 1,200. I said 1,200.

1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.

Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.

You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.

I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.

I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.

You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.

But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.

I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.

No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.

Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.

I didn't say it was anyone posting on here.... but you yourself acknowledged that there are people who do. Oh and I didn't say less than 1,200. I said 1,200.

Even so, I seriously doubt that you really 'know' anyone outside of MFP doing 5:2 on 1,200! If you do, go and speak to them face-to-face about it instead of multiple posting on these forums.

You're contradicting yourself now as you started by complaining about people getting away with posting about it on here!

1,200 can be considered eating normally! I know loads of people on this diet eating 1,200 on their 5 other days.

Just seems double standards that someone can be on this diet and can eat the exact same number of calories over the course of a week as I do yet it is my posts that get deleted.

You are ill-informed and should, perhaps, do some research on the subject before calling BS.

I follow the 5:2 principal, belong to IF & 5:2 groups and have many 5:2 friends. I have barely come across anyone that restricts to 1,200 on 'normal' days. There will always be exceptions who take it to the extreme but they don't last long.

I actually do 4:3 (ie. 3 low days) and I eat more calories than I would following 7 days at 1,200.

You just countered your own point by saying there are exceptions and that "barely anyone" restricts to 1,200. Suggesting you agree that some do. Those are the people I am talking about.

But as said earlier....'Dumb people are dumb at the end of the day' ......whatever diet they follow.

I'm just saying that you can't say that the fasting principle is wrong, it's just a different method of calorie restriction.

No no no no I have not said it is wrong at all. I see no problem with it whatsoever. BUT it is exacting exactly the same number of calories (for some people) as I do over the course of a week. Yet when posed as the 5:2 diet it is fine. When posed as 1,000 calories a day it is not. Double standards.

Show me the posts from 'loads of people' that are eating less than 1,200 on their normal days.

I didn't say it was anyone posting on here.... but you yourself acknowledged that there are people who do. Oh and I didn't say less than 1,200. I said 1,200.

Even so, I seriously doubt that you really 'know' anyone outside of MFP doing 5:2 on 1,200! If you do, go and speak to them face-to-face about it instead of multiple posting on these forums.

You're contradicting yourself now as you started by complaining about people getting away with posting about it on here!

How am I contradicting myself!? I meant the 5:2 diet in general promotes eating under 500 calories a day and you could be eating 7,000 calories a week on the 5:2 diet and I et 7,000 doing what I am doing, Yet apparently one is fine and the other is not.

Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.

Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.

How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.

And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.

And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....

just a thought...

Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.

Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.

How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.

And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.

And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....

just a thought...

If you're burning 1000cals a day exercising you may want to eat back many of those to counter-act it.

The 5:2 is just another method of calorie restriction which some people find easier to follow. Each to their own.

Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.

Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.

How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.

And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.

And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....

just a thought...

Hi Charlene.
I train 6 days a week and did so throughout my weight loss period.
Using muscles for fuel is your body's absolute last resort and not something that an average person with a reasonable diet needs to worry themselves about.
Long before that you would have "hit the wall" or "bonked" when your glycogen got depleted and you would struggle to continue training that day until you ate something.
Fasting seems to have improved my ability to burn fat as I'm now able to cycle much futher without carbing up beforehand or eating while I'm riding (anecdotal....).

Sorry to throw another perspective into this mix however as someone who trains 6/7 days a week and eats an average of around 1800-2000 a day because i'm roughly burning 1000 a day with exercise this "diet" isn't feasible to me.

Now I know the "average" person doesn't train 6/7 days a week so I'm not referring to myself here but I have a genuine question here - how can having such a deficit be healthy.

How could you maintain these fasting days whilst still training? Your body would start to burn muscle as fuel because you aren't feeding it enough. I'm not an idiot before people try and "explain" the diet to me. I fully understand the mechanics of it BUT I don't understand why you'd see eating 500 a day ( twice a week ) healthy when you physically need to eat your BMR daily to have healthy body functions.

And if you say you don't train on the fasting days , why would you consider that healthy! I'd rather put the work in and do a run/gym session so can I eat my 1800 a day and still lose the weight.

And before anybody says anything exercise works, I've lost 115 llbs in 9 months through exercise and eating around 1800/2000 a day so it works ! no need for starving yourself thus doing damage to muscles....

just a thought...

Hi Charlene.
I train 6 days a week and did so throughout my weight loss period.
Using muscles for fuel is your body's absolute last resort and not something that an average person with a reasonable diet needs to worry themselves about.
Long before that you would have "hit the wall" or "bonked" when your glycogen got depleted and you would struggle to continue training that day until you ate something.
Fasting seems to have improved my ability to burn fat as I'm now able to cycle much futher without carbing up beforehand or eating while I'm riding (anecdotal....).

Hey S

Its funny how you get so much conflicting information though because I've had chats with my doctor and PT have both advised that when the body is depleted of glycogen through lack of fuel, the first thing it goes for is muscle as the energy store and furthermore its been said that it happens with as little a deficit as 20% never-mind 75% on a fasting day.

I know from personal experience I like to essentially eat what I want hence why I exercise as much as I do so on something like the 5:2 I'd be starving and therefore overeat and start obsessing about food again which was what got me fat in the first place.

I like to think there is a reason athletes eat in the excess of 5000 a day ( I'm a big swimmer so should be eating probably more ) and yet they still maintain a peak physical condition. I'm not saying for one minute that I'm an athlete now but I used to be and my swimming allowed me to eat pretty much what I wanted and still remaining lean and healthy.

Each to their on and everything and I do respect people's choices but to me it's just another "fad" and not something I'd ever entertain.. fair play to those who have ( you said you've been on it for 18 months) and done well on it but its not a long term solution.. I enjoy the luxury of not having to fit my life around fasting days and my lifestyle at present wouldn't allow such a restrictive diet.

It is interesting to see people's views on this so cheers Simon

I have to agree. Why would you want to totally deprive yourself twice a week when reasonable eating across the whole week would achieve the same results?

Because some people find it easier to eat low calories twice a week and "normal" calories the rest of the week as opposed to limiting themselves every single day.

Let's say my maintenance calories are 1800/day. That plus my fasting would put me at 10,000/week.
Maybe that's easier for me than <1450 calories/day. Regardless, if we were eating the same amount of calories each week, why do you care what I do as long as it works for me?

I know what 5:2 is ... but what is "IF" that several people referred to?

I'm at my target weight which I achieved by regular calorie counting. Over Christmas I gained back 5lb and now that I've at last lost them again, I'm wondering whether it's possible to switch to 5:2 for maintaining? That way, I'm thinking that I may not get big gains for a holiday season and then have to work on loss again. Does anyone maintain on the 5:2 routine? Could it become a way of life?

I wouldnt recommend the 5:2 for anything, full stop. A completely unnatural way of eating.

I have to agree. Why would you want to totally deprive yourself twice a week when reasonable eating across the whole week would achieve the same results?

I'm a regular faster, for several reasons. I enjoy folding fasting into my life. It's a great way to lose, or maintain, while having open, free days the majority of the time that require no counting, weighing, or measuring. For me "deprivation" on fasting days isn't painful or bothersome whatsoever, and it doesn't lead to binging. I am not a food addict who needs to shovel food in my mouth everyday, all day, so it's not an issue.

This doesn't work for everyone, but not everyone has the same relationship with eating as you do. For some of us IFing is pretty much perfect.

Looking for 5:2 buddies