It's not intermittent fasting if the difference between high and low days is big deficit (5 days) and massive deficit (2 days).
The idea is to eat normally on the five days and only restrict on the fast days - the calorie deficit and therefore weight loss is only supposed to come from the fast days.

Your calculation is flawed unless you do zero exercise because MFP isn't a TDEE calculator (MFP goal is plus exercise calories which TDEE already includes).

If you are following the TDEE method then you can simply custom set your goal to TDEE to give you your 5 day level.
Have a look at this for their TDEE calculator - http://thefastdiet.co.uk/how-many-calories-on-a-non-fast-day/

If you are following the MFP level then set your goal to maintain current weight and eat back exercise calories on your 5 days only.

Obviously this isn't set in stone but it makes sense to make it your start point - if you pick a plan then it's best to at least try and follow the plan to see how it works for you. With this "game" calorie levels are estimates and adjustment after a period of time may be necessary if you aren't getting the expected results.

To answer your question - yes I did eat to my maintenance levels on the non-fast days and my weight loss was slow, steady and sustainable as expected. The switch to maintenance was an absolute breeze too - which doesn't seem to be the case for a lot of people who rush their weight loss.

I lost weight initially at roughly 1lb a week but that was a trend rather than linear progress, my weight fluctuates a lot anyway and with 5:2 those fluctuations are even more pronounced.

I've been maintaining for almost two years but have nibbled a few extra pounds off in a series of small steps. My initial goal weight was a guess based on my favourite weight in my 20's - that turned out not to be the same as my ideal weight in my 50's!

I've maintained on both 5:2 and 6:1 patterns but prefer 6:1 as it gives me 6 days eating at a pretty intuitive level.

it takes getting used to, doesn't it? being allowed to eat more than you think! I eat a bit less than my TDEE because I can manage eating at 1500-1600 - I feel like it's a good amount for me to stay full but with plenty of energy.

Not everyone can count on the TDEE calculators being accurate either. you need to play around with it and see what works for you. If I ate TDEE as calculated I gain weight. Call it over 50 blues or whatever it is my reality. i have lean muscle mass too. So use what works for you.

I must have always had a lower TDEE or I wouldn't have gotten so fat!! I am a nutritionist by education and did everything by the book and nothing ever worked, even weight watchers so it must have always been sluggish. Even with weights and lean mass building which is counter intuitive. Being 50 just confirms you need less as you get older but honestly I am more energetic now than at 30 and have NO plans to slow down!! I look a helluva a lot better than my friends do too! LOL.

janetteluparia wrote: »

...I look a helluva a lot better than my friends do too! LOL.

Last straw! ...I'm soo not your friend anymore!

Worked with plenty of nutritionists (OPH)...use to love to go to lunch with them, oh boy they can eat! Maybe it's a New Orleans thing.

janetteluparia wrote: »

TDEE for me is about 1300. Sadly. More with activity of course. It's just the way it is. I have lean mass but I've been doing this awhile and am actually a licensed sports nutritionist (inactive). I've had to accept it.

Poor you!
I thought I was dealt a poor hand as my TDEE is always about 300/day less than calculators give me.
Without my exercise I would feel dreadfully restricted so can only imagine how hard 1300 a day must be.